## Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot Chapter 7 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:1) **משנה:** שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת חַיָיבִין לְזַמֵּן. אָכַל דְּמַאי וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּיפְדּוּ וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת וְהַכּוּתִי מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל טֵבֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִיפְדּוּ וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת וְהַנָּכְרִי אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Three persons who ate together are required to “invite”¹. If one ate *demai*² must be eaten by a Cohen’s family in ritual purity. There is no rate set for *terumah* in the Torah but in times when ritual purity can be observed, the rabbinically established rate was 2 percent. Next, the tithe of 10% must be given to a Levite. This *maäser* again is subject to a 10% *terumah of the tithe* to be given to the Cohen. The remainder of this *first tithe* is secular private property of the Levite and need not be kept in purity. However, consumption by a non-Cohen of any food containing still *terumah* (and of impure *terumah* by a Cohen) is a deadly sin. In Temple times it was established that all Jews, educated and uneducated, observant and nonobservant alike, did separate *terumah* and give it to a Cohen. However, the first tithe was not given by a substantial minority of uneducated and nonobservant. Since untithed produce still contains the *terumah of the tithe* and its consumption would be a deadly sin, it was instituted that observant Jews have to separate at least the *terumah of the tithe* for produce bought from unreliable sources. Since a majority of all agricultural producers did give the tithe, the obligation to tithe is conditional and is waved for the poor. Produce sold by unreliable persons is called *demai*; the rules under which *demai* has to be given are spelled out in a separate Tractate. In any case, since any person might give away all his property and then become poor and eat *demai* without tithing, *demai* is potentially permitted food for everybody and the person who eats it does not commit blasphemy in reciting Grace., or first tithe of which the heave was taken³, or second tithe⁴ or dedicated foods⁵ that were redeemed, or the waiter who ate the volume of an olive⁶, or a Samaritan⁷ 17) who accepted the written Torah but not the oral law. [Since they did not resist the effort made by Diocletian to unify the Roman Empire in pagan rite, this statement of the Mishnah no longer applies. It does apply, however, to Karaites.], these can be invited. But if one ate untithed produce, or first tithe of which the heave was not taken, or the second tithe⁸ or dedicated foods that were not redeemed⁹, or the waiter who ate less than the volume of an olive, or a Gentile¹⁰, these cannot be invited. footnotes: ¹ Three adult males who ate together are obliged to recite Grace as a group and start with a special invitation to all participants to join in the praise of the Lord by Whose kindness we live. The text of the “invitation” is given in Mishnah 3. ² Newly harvested produce is subject to several obligatory gifts and tithes. The first one is the heave, תְּרוּמָה, that can be given to any Cohen. This terumah ³ The Babli explains, even if the heave was taken somewhat irregularly. There is no mention of that in the Yerushalmi. ⁴ The second tithe remains the property of the farmer but either it must be eaten in Jerusalem or it must be redeemed and the proceeds taken to Jerusalem and spent there for food. Second tithe that was redeemed is normal food permitted to everybody. ⁵ This is food from an animal not of the kind that may be sacrificed, or vegetables that may not be sacrificed, but were given to support the upkeep of the Temple. These gifts are then sold and the money used for the Temple. After the sale, the food is profane, for everybody to eat. Also, an animal dedicated for the altar that develops a blemish before it is sacrificed, can be redeemed and then becomes secular food which, however, must be consumed in a dignified manner. ⁶ Nobody may recite Grace who did not eat at least food of the volume of an average olive. The waiter is acceptable even though he did not sit down with the guests he served. ⁷ The descendants of the people settled in Samaria by the king of Assyria (2Kings ⁸ Outside of Jerusalem. ⁹ Except for the second tithe, the consumption of the foods mentioned here is a deadly sin; hence, pronouncing a benediction over that food would be the additional sin of blasphemy. ¹⁰ He is not obliged to recite Grace and has no part in the Land for which we give praise. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:2) **הלכה:** הָכָא אִיתְמַר אֵין רְשָׁאִין לְחַלֵּק. וָכָה אִיתְמַר חַיַָיבִין לְזַמֵּן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר כַּאן בִּתְחִילָּה כַּאן בְּסוֹף. אֵי זֶהוּ בִּתְחִילָּה וְאֵי זֶהוּ בְּסוֹף. תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרָיִן חַד אָמַר נָתְנוּ דַּעַת לֶאֱכוֹל זֶהוּ בִּתְחִילָּה. אָכְלוּ כְזַיִת זֶהוּ בְּסוֹף. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אָכְלוּ כְזַיִת זֶהוּ בִּתְחִילָּה. גָּמְרוּ אֲכִילָתָן זֶהוּ בְּסוֹף. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Here¹¹ 45a and *Talmid Rabbenu Jonah*,*Rosh* on Mishnah 5. it has been said “they are not allowed to split” and here it has been said “they are required to ‘invite’ ”¹². Samuel said, one is at the start and one is at the end. What means “beginning” and what means “end”? Two Amoraïm; one said if they decided to eat together that is the start¹³, when they ate the volume of an olive that is the end¹⁴. But the other one said, if they ate the volume of an olive that is the start¹⁵, when they finished their meal that is the end¹⁶. footnotes: ¹¹ Mishnah 5: Three who ate together are not allowed to split. [There the emphasis is on the fact that six people who ate together may split into two groups of three.] The Yerushalmi is discussed at length by Tosaphot Berakhot ¹² The two Mishnayot seem to say the same thing, so one of them would be superfluous. ¹³ They are no longer allowed to split. ¹⁴ They are required to recite Grace together with the formal “invitation.” ¹⁵ They are no longer allowed to eat each one for himself. ¹⁶ They must recite Grace together; if one of them finishes early he is not allowed to recite Grace for himself and then leave. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:3) רִבִּי אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַב חוּנָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹבָה שְׁנַיִם רְשׁוּת. אָמְרָהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֲנִי אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת חַיָיבִין לְזַמֵּן. רַבָּנָן דְּהָכָא כְּדַעְתּוֹן. וְרַבָּנָן דְּהָתָם כְּדַעְתּוֹן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ דִּינָן דִּין אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא נִקְרָא בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָמְרִין אֲפִילוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ אֵין דִּינָן דִּין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Three are required, two have permission. Rebbi Zeïra said this before Rebbi Yasa. He said to him: I have only the Mishnah, three who ate together are required to “invite”¹⁷. The rabbis of here stick by their opinion, the rabbis of there¹⁸; in Babli *Sanhedrin* (5b/6a) this is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Abbahu, student of R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Yoḥanan. The Babli (*Berakhot* 45b) only hints that the difference has its roots in different local traditions. stick by their opinion. Samuel said, two who judged, their judgment is valid but they are called an insolent court. Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, two who judged, their judgment is invalid. footnotes: ¹⁷ But two may not recite Grace together with the formula of invitation. The Babli (45a/b) comes to the same conclusion that the old tradition of Babylonia was that two may say Grace together but three must do it, but the Israeli tradition was always to exclude two if three are required. ¹⁸ Babylonia. The disagreement between Samuel and R. Yoḥanan / R. Simeon ben Laqish belongs to tractate Sanhedrin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:4) רַב חוּנָא אָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ מְזַמְּנִין. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר וְהֵן שֶׁבָּאוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ חֲבוּרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זֵירָא וַחֲבוּרָתֵיהּ וְהֵן שֶׁאָכְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יוֹנָה עַל הֲדָא דְּרַב חוּנָא הִטְבִּיל שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵיזוֹבוֹת זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ מַזֶּה בָהֶן. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר וְהֵן שֶׁבָּאוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ חֲבִילוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא וַחֲבוּרָתֵהּ וְהוּא שֶׁהִטְבִּיל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן כְּאַחַת. אִין תֵּימַר אֵין לְמֵידִין אֵזוֹב מִבְּרָכָה. וַאֲנָן חֲזִינָן רַבָּנָן קַיָימִין בְּסוּכָּה וְיַלְפִין מִטִּיט הַנָּרוּק. כְּיַי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הִרְחִיק אֶת הַסִּיכּוּךְ מִן הַדְּפָנוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים פְּסוּלָה. הָא פָּחוֹת מִיכַּן כְּשֵׁירָה. מַהוּ לִישָׁן תַּחְתָּיו. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְיָשִׁיב הֲרֵי טִיט הַנָּרוּק מַשְׁלִים בְּמִקְוֶה וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בּוֹ. אַף הָכָא מַשְׁלִים בְּסוּכָּה וְאֵין יְשֵׁינִין תַּחְתָּיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav Huna said, three who ate each one by himself¹⁹ and then came together²⁰ do “invite”. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three groups²¹. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra²² and his group, only if all three ate together²³ (*Berakhot* 5:23, cf. end of Halakhah 5) that people in a caravan, if they eat while walking, cannot recite Grace together even if they all ate from the same food, but if they sit together at a rest stop, they must recite Grace together even if everyone ate his own provisions. In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi never entertains the thought that for common Grace one would have to lie down on couches.. Rebbi Jonah on that of Rav Huna: If he dipped three stalks of hyssop each one by himself and then took them together, he may sprinkle with it²⁴ 19, Mishnah *Parah*). A “bunch” is a minimum of three stalks. The opinions here are attributed to the older authorities by Rebbi Jonah.. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three bundles. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three were dipped together. If you want to say that we do not infer rules of hyssop from rules of benedictions, do we not see the rabbis deal with *sukkah* and learn from pourable mud?²⁵. As we have stated (Mishnah *Sukkah* 1:10): “If the roofing was three hand-breadths away from the walls it is invalid.²⁶ is that its roof must be botanical (but only materials that cannot become ritually unclean). The branches or other material must be arranged so that there is more shadow than sun inside the *sukkah*. If there is a place where that condition is not satisfied for three hand-breadths horizontally from a wall, the *sukkah* cannot be used to fulfill the commandment “to dwell” in it (*Lev.* 23:42).” Hence less than that is acceptable. May one sleep under that²⁷? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashib²⁸ answered, pourable mud completes a *miqweh*²⁹, about 135 gallons. If there is not enough clear water, the desired volume can be obtained by adding mud that is so moist that it can be poured from a bucket (Mishnah *Miqwaöt* 7:1). The complete argument is in Yerushalmi *Sukkah* 1:10, Babli *Sukkah* 19a. but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the *sukkah* but one may not sleep under it. footnotes: ¹⁹ Different food at different tables, or at one table but they are strangers to one another and each one eats his own food that he brought with him. The disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda is explained differently in the Babli, 50a. ²⁰ At one table (or on one group of couches) befor they recited Grace. ²¹ Every one of the three was required to recite Grace with “invitation”; he may fulfill his obligation even in another group. But if three people were not obligated to “invite” during their meal they cannot become subject to “inviting” after they had finished eating. ²² Here he is called by his Babylonian name זירא since, under the influence of Accadic, the Jews in Babylonia early on had lost the sound of ע. While his Israeli name appears in the list of R. Jonah, the entire piece seems to have had a Babylonian editor; so it uses the Babylonian Aramaic חזי “to see” instead of the usual Israeli חמי. ²³ From the start. (In the Babli, 50a, this is the opinion of Samuel, but here it is the opinion only of the rabbis in Israel). Connected with this is the Tosephta ²⁴ Used for cleansing a person or utensils impure by contact with a corpse; cleansing needs sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop that was dipped in water in which some of the ashes of a red heifer were dissolved (Num. ²⁵ This proof that one requires logical consistency even in fields that are rather remote from each other is also a belated justification of the previous comparison of the rules of Grace with the composition of a court of law. ²⁶ The essence of the sukkah ²⁷ The place, less than two hand-breadths wide, under which there is more sun than shadow. Instead of sleeping, the question could have been asked about eating. ²⁸ An Israeli Amora of the fourth generation, colleague of Rebbi Mana; a holy man and worker of miracles. ²⁹ A ritual bath can be used for cleansing impurities only if it contains 40 seäh ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:5) שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת וּבִיקֵּשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לֵילֵךְ לוֹ דְּבֵית רַב אָמַרֵי יְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְיֵלֶךְ לוֹ. אֵי זוּ הִיא בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּבֵית רַב אָמְרֵי זוּ בִּרְכַּת הַזִּימּוּן. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה זוּ הַזָּן אֶת הַכֹּל. רִבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ [רַב] חָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַב זוּ הַזָּן אֶת הַכֹּל. הָתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא שְׁנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה חַיָיבִין בְּבִרְכַת הַזִּימּוּן. הָא אַרְבָּעָה לֹא. אִין תֵּימַר בִּרְכַּת זִימוּן רִאשׁוֹנָה נִיתְנֵי אַרְבָּעָה. אַשְׁכְּחָן תַּנִּי אַרְבָּעָה. אִין תֵּימַר זוּ הַזָּן אֶת הַכֹּל קַשְׁיָא. אִין תֵּימַר זוּ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב. לֵית אַתְּ יָכִיל. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דְּאָמַר רַב חוּנָא מִשֶּׁנִּיתְּנוּ הֲרוּגֵי בֵיתָר לִקְבוּרָה נִקְבְּעָה הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב. הַטּוֹב שֶׁלֹּא נִסְרְחוּ וְהַמֵּטִיב שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ לִקְבוּרָה. אָמַר רַב חוּנָה תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעְאֵל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דִּכְתִיב וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ זוּ בִּרְכַּת הַזִּימּוּן. אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ זוּ הַזָּן אֶת הַכֹּל. עַל הָאָרֶץ זוּ בִּרְכַּת הָאָרֶץ. הַטּוֹבָה זוּ בִּרְכַּת בּוֹנֵה יְרוּשָׁלַםִ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה וְהַלְּבָנוֹן. אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָךְ זֶה הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav³⁰ they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.”³¹ Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a *baraita* disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace.³² is according to Alfassi: If two or three people sit together and neither of them knows how to recite the entire Grace but each of them knows one or two benedictions that the others do not, then they take turns in reciting the benedictions and they all have fulfilled their obligations, the one reciting by pronouncing the benediction and the others by listening and answering “Amen”. The numbers are important to show that we require one person to recite an entire benediction; it is not permissible to split one benediction among several people. Hence, the maximal number of people who can share in reciting Grace is the number of benedictions in Grace.” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it³³ is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference³⁴ because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed³⁵ (Northvale NJ, 1995) p. 358–359. after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar³⁶, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said³⁷ Ba 16., “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (*Deut.*8:10): *You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise*, that is the benediction of invitation; t*he Eternal, your God*, that is “He Who feeds all”³⁸; *for the Land*, that is the benediction over the Land; *the good one*, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (*Deut.* 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon³⁹ 10:34) “the Lebanon will fall through a powerful one” (Babli *Giṭṭin* 56b; Yerushalmi sources: *Abot deR. Nathan* 4, *Midrash Ekha rabba* 1).”]; *that He gave you*, that is “He Who is good and does good”. footnotes: ³⁰ After Rav’s death. ³¹ The first benediction of Grace when recited without “invitation”. It seems that Rebbi Zeïra also agrees that the one who wants to leave has to recite the benediction “of invitation” aloud so that the other two may answer and fulfill their duty to recite Grace with “invitation”; the disagreement is only about how much he has to recite aloud, whether only the “invitation” or also the first benediction of Grace proper. [If all three recite Grace together, the one who recites the “invitation” has to recite all of Grace aloud; this custom has disappeared in Eastern European Ashkenazic Jewry after the invention of printing and the availability of inexpensive prayer books for everyone.] ³² It is generally agreed that ברכת הזימון is a scribal error and that the correct reading is that of Alfassi ברכת המזון “Grace”. The explanation of the elliptic baraita ³³ The fourth benediction according to him who requires the first benediction to include “He Who feeds all.” ³⁴ Between the first three benedictions that are Torah obligations and the fourth one who seems to be Rabbinic in character. ³⁵ It says “fixed”, not “instituted” as in the parallel in the Babli (48b). According to the Yerushalmi, the fourth benediction is old, probably Biblical, but it was not permanently required in earlier times; the problem is discussed in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah ³⁶ Roman law did not allow the burial of rebels against the government. Hence, the dead of Betar, the last of Bar Kokhba’s fortresses, could certainly not be buried during Hadrian’s lifetime. It is not known which of his successors gave permission to bury the dead. We may assume that it was the same emperor who permitted the re-establishment of the Synhedrion. ³⁷ Mekhilta deR. Ismael ³⁸ Since the name “God” represents God as Creator of the physical world. ³⁹ “Lebanon” means the Temple; this identification goes back at least to the time of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai who predicted to Vespasian that he would become emperor, since he would destroy the Temple and it is written (Is. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:6) כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה בְּרָכָה לְפָנֶיהָ וְאֵין כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. מַה כָּתוּב בָּהּ לְפָנֶיהָ כִּי שֵׁם יי אֶקְרָא הָבוּ גּוֹדֶל לֶאלֹהֵינוּ. כְּתִיב בְּמָזוֹן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרֶיהָ וְאֵין כָּתוּב לְפָנָיו. מַה כְּתִיב לְאַחֲרָיו וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ. וּמְנַיִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר בְּזֶה בְזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר בְּזֶה בְזֶה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אַתְיָא שֵׁם שֵׁם לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה. מַה שֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו אַף שֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָזוֹן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו. וּמַה שֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָזוֹן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו. אַף שֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעְאֵל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעְאֵל קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם מָזוֹן שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו תּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא טְעוּנָה בְּרָכָה לְפָנֶיהָ. אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא טְעוּנָה בְרָכָה לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. עַד כְּדוֹן תּוֹרָה. מָזוֹן מַה. אִם תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה בְרָכָה לְאַחֲרֶיהָ טָעוּנָה בְּרָכָה לְפָנֶיהָ. מָזוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו. אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁטָּעוּן בְרָכָה לְפָנָיו. רִבִּי יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי נָתָן. [רִבִּי יִצְחָק] אָמַר כִּי הוּא יְבָרֵךְ הַזֶּבַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכְלוּ הַקְּרוּאִים. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֶת יי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּבֵרַךְ אֶת לַחְמְךָ וְאֶת מֵימֶיךָ. אֵימָתַי הוּא קָרוּי לַחְמְךָ וְאֶת מֵימֶיךָ. עַד שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתָּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר מַה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָכַל וְשָׂבֵעַ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא תָאֵב לֶאֱכוֹל לֹא כָּל שְׁכֵּן. עַד כְּדוֹן מָזוֹן. תּוֹרָה מַה. אִם מָזוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֵלָּא חַיֵּי שָׁעָה טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו. תּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא חַיֵּי עַד לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** For Torah⁴⁰ there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (*Deut.* 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (*Deut.* 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions⁴¹ one has a tradition that two equal or synonymous expressions are written in the Torah for purposes of comparison and *if* these two words are not used for any other inference, *then* all laws connected with one word apply to the other and vice-versa. The derivation here does not fulfill these conditions; hence, it is labelled to follow the rules of R. Aqiba who is not known to require too much formality in case the verse is used to give a biblical base to an old tradition.. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba⁴² on *Leviticus*. The problem of both Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael is that in its mishnaic-talmudic form, the rules of Jewish conduct form a logically consistent whole. It was shown earlier in this chapter, Notes 24 – 29, that rules must be consistent from one application to the next, such as rules of Grace and forming a court of law. But the basis of these laws, the words of the Torah, are unsystematic, fragmentary, and sometimes appear contradictory. Hence, one needs a method of translating the aphoristic text of the Torah in a legally consistent new language; cf. the author’s *Logical problems in Jewish tradition*, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. P. Longworth, Blond, London 1966, 171–196. The rules are discussed in the medieval texts *Introduction to the Talmud* by R. Samuel Hanaggid and *Sefer Keritut* of R. Simson of Sens.. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater⁴³ in the name of R. Yoḥanan only and points out that the application here is not justified since it is self-contradictory. The Yerushalmi seems to be of the opinion that in the formulation given here, with “not more stringent” instead of “less stringent”, the argument is logically admissible.. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (*1Sam.* 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.”⁴⁴ (*loc. cit.*) this is given in the name of R. Nathan only. A verse from Samuel (Biblical but not Pentateuchal) cannot prove a commandment but can prove a practice. Rebbi Nathan⁴⁵ said, (*Ex.* 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat⁴⁶. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more⁴⁷ this is a קל וחוֹמר of Rebbi Ismael.. footnotes: ⁴⁰ Torah study, including Torah reading. ⁴¹ In general, it is assumed in the system of Rebbi Aqiba that a word can have only one meaning. A stronger implication, agreed to by all tannaïtic authorities, is a “parallel expression”. The formal definition of the school of R. Ismael is that if ⁴² Who is an exponent of intensional interpretation, whereas R. Ismael is an exponent of extensional interpretation. The rules of R. Ismael are systematized in his “13 rules” given in the introduction to the halakhic Midrash Sifra ⁴³ קל וחוֹמר, the first rule of R. Ismael. If there are two commandments, A and B, and if every rule for A is no more stringent than the corresponding rule for B, then a rule expressed for A that has no equivalent for B is valid also for B. The Babli (21a) quotes the following qal waḥomer ⁴⁴ In the Babli (48b) and in the Mekhilta ⁴⁵ In the Babli and the Mekhilta, this appears in the name of Rebbi Isaac. ⁴⁶ The full verse seems to read: “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, then He will bless your bread and your water and I will remove sickness from your midst.” The switch from third to first person is awkward in any case. In the Babli (in particular, in the Sephardic incunabula print) it is spelled out: Do not read וּבֵרַךְ “He will bless” but וּבָרֵךְ “and praise”. However, the Bible Concordance of G. Lisowsky (Stuttgart 1958) takes the verse, as it stands, to mean “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, and praise for your bread and your water, then I will remove sickness from your midst.” One may recite a benediction one one’s bread and one’s water only before it is consumed; afterwards one may speak only of nourishment and sustenance. ⁴⁷ In the Babli and the Mekhilta ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:7) רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְּעִי אִילֵּין שְׁלֹשָׁה קְרוּיוֹת מַה אַתְּ עֲבִיד לוֹן. כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת. אוֹ כִשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינוּן כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת. הָרִאשׁוֹן מְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהָאַחֲרוֹן בְּרָכָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. וְהָאֶמְצָעִי אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ כָּל עִיקָּר. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינוּן כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲפִילוּ הָאֶמְצָעִי מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדַּימִא לֹא לָמְדוּ בִּרְכַּת הַתּוֹרָה מִבִּרְכַּת [הַמָּזוֹן] אֶלָּא לְרַבִּים. וְאִם לְרַבִּים אֲפִילוּ בֵינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ לֹא יְבָרֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּ מָרִי אַחֲוֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי עֲשָׂאוּהָ כִּשְׁאָר כָּל מִצְוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. מַה שְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת טְעוּנוֹת בְּרָכָה. אַף זוּ טְעוּנָה בְרָכָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Zeïra asked: These three that are called⁴⁸ 21b there is a *baraita*: “(In reading the Torah) he who starts recites the benediction before and he who finishes recites the benediction after.” On that, the Gemara notes: But today, all recite benedictions before and after. This “today” may be long after the work on the Yerushalmi stopped. In any case, the *baraita* seems to represent the early Babylonian practice; we do not know of any direct Yerushalmi source that let people read the Torah without benediction. Rebbi Zeïra, the Galilean head of academy who had come from Babylonia, is the right person to ask for the reasons and the correct practice. Since his questions remain without answers, both practices might be acceptable. Both the preceding paragraph and R. Zeïra’s question presuppose that private Torah reading requires benedictions before and after, cf. מסכת סופרים Chap. 13 and Ezra Fleischer, קטעים מקובצי תפילה ארץ־ישראליים מן הגניזה, קובץ על יד יג (כג) 139–141, 188–189., how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace⁴⁹ 4:1; the Venice print has here “benediction of ‘invitation’ ”, a scribal error הזימון for המזון. only in public⁵⁰ 1:8), one benediction in the morning is enough to cover all Torah study during the day and evening; one does not have to recite a new benediction for study after an interruption. The prayer manuals of Yerushalmi type (see Note 48) which have benedictions after the reading of Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographs require these only for reading the Bible, not oral Torah study.. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose⁵¹, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction⁵² 32:3, is clearly addressed to the public and, therefore, not applicable to private study.. footnotes: ⁴⁸ For reading the Torah in public. Since the preceding arguments tied benedictions over Torah reading to Grace, one has to ask in which way they are comparable. In the Babli Megillah ⁴⁹ Text of the parallel in Megillah ⁵⁰ R. Samuel ben Eudaimon seems to object to reciting a benediction after Torah study. Also, since Torah study is a permanent obligation (Jos. ⁵¹ An Amora of the fourth generation who is never mentioned in the Babli. ⁵² Most commandments need only a benediction before, not after their execution. Thus, the benediction for the Torah in private study follows the general rule of benedictions over commandments. The quote for benediction for the Torah before the reading, Deut. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:1:8) אָכַל דְּמַאי. הֲדָא אָמְרָה אָכַל פֵּירוֹת סָפֵק נִיתַקְּנוּ סָפֵק לֹא נִיתַקְּנוּ מְזַמְּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַחֲוֵי דְּרִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁגָּזְרוּ עַל הַדְּמַאי רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין לְבָתֵּיהֶן. וַיי דָא אָמְרָה דָא כּוּתִי מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. וְאָהֵן כּוּתִי לָאו סָפֵק הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא תִּיפְתָּר כְּמַן דָּמַר כּוּתִי כְגוֹי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּתִי כְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If one ate *demay*.”⁵³ This means that, if one ate produce which perhaps was tithed⁵⁴ and *terumah of the tithe* were taken so that it may be consumed without incurring guilt and perhaps was not tithed, one invites him. Rebbi Simeon, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah⁵⁵: At the time when they were instituting *demai*, most of the unlearned brought the harvest into their houses⁵⁶ and tithe starts when produce is brought through the door of the house (or barn). The expression here implies that most of the unlearned followed the rules and ate only produce that was in order; only because of the severity of the offense of eating *ṭevel* was the rule of *demai* decreed since a minority of uneducated did not follow the rules for produce sold; in that case the probablity of having produce that was not in order was less than 50%. There is therefore no inference possible for the problem under discussion, where the probability of things being wrong is 50%.. Which one says that⁵⁷? “One invites the Samaritan.” And is that Samaritan not doubtful⁵⁸? Rebbi Abba said, explain it following what is said⁵⁹ for him the Mishnah simply declares that Samaritans are counted as Jews and no inference is possible for our case. The question is left without answer.: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects. footnotes: ⁵³ Quote from the Mishnah. ⁵⁴ Food of which terumah ⁵⁵ He is not otherwise mentioned in the Talmud. ⁵⁶ The obligation to give terumah ⁵⁷ Which part of the Mishnah does speak to our problem? ⁵⁸ Since Samaritans do not follow rabbinic rules, we cannot check on the status of their produce. ⁵⁹ Referring to the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the baraita; ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:1) **משנה:** נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. עַד כַּמָּה מְזַמְּנִין עַד כְּזַיִת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד כְּבֵיצָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One does not ‘invite’⁶⁰ women, slaves, and minors. What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Yehudah says to the size of an egg⁶¹. footnotes: ⁶⁰ To recite the invitation aloud and to count them for a group of three. [The Babli notes that women for themselves and slaves for themselves may recite Grace with “invitation”; we cannot know what was the position of the Yerushalmi in that matter.] ⁶¹ That the total food consumed by each person is at least the volume of an average olive or chicken egg. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:2) **הלכה:** רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי קָטָן עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לַעֲשָׂרָה. וְהָתַנִּי אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּקָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קַיְימָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן רִבִּי חֲנִינָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִשְׁנֵי קְטַנִּים נִצְרְכָה. שֶׁאִם הָיָה קָטָן עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סָפֵק. סָפֵק עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ וַדַּאי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תִּשְׁעָה נִרְאִין כַּעֲשָׂרָה מַה [מְזַמְּנִין] מְסוּיָימִין. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ קָטָן בֵּינֵיהֶן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: One makes a minor an appendix for ten⁶² services. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul was a student of Rebbi. He transmits sayings of Rebbi only.. But did we not state: One does not investigate a minor⁶³ is quoted in Babli 47b: “A minor who grew two pubic hairs may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who did not grow two pubic hairs may not take part in ‘invitation’ but one does not investigate a minor.” The other version is in Tosephta *Berakhot* 5:18: “A minor who can eat an olive may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who cannot eat an olive may not take part in ‘invitation’; one does not investigate a minor.” Most commentators refer the Yerushalmi to the version in Berakhot but it seems clear that the Yerushalmi is based on a text close to the Tosephta and emphatically disagrees with the Babli, cf. *Tosephta Kifshutah*, *ad loc.*? Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi⁶⁴ 91; there it says correctly “Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi”. The last part of the Tosephta implies that if a boy is on the threshhold of manhood (*bar miẓwah*), one can make him take part in any ceremony that needs ten adults by simply asking him if he is of age; one does not have to investigate if what he says is true. The implication here is that if one has a boy who looks younger than the age of puberty, one certainly cannot take him as tenth man.: it⁶⁵ is needed for two minors; if he is a minor, one considers him doubtful, if he is doubtful⁶⁶, one considers him certain. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose: nine that look like ten⁶⁷, does one “invite” only those that are certain? Also if a minor was among them? footnotes: ⁶² The next Mishnah explains that the formula of “invitation” for three is “let us praise Him of Whose bounty we ate” whereas for ten it is “let us praise our God of Whose bounty we ate”. The question is whether the ten all have to be male adults or whether they have to be just ten males (of which nine are certain adults and the tenth possibly a minor as “appendix”.) In the Babli (47b/48a), R. Joshua ben Levi is quoted as permitting the tenth (for reciting Grace) even to be a baby lying in a crib. However, from the continuation of the discussion here it seems that the Yerushalmi does not even consider allowing a minor to join for the long form of “invitation” but only for Torah reading or other public ⁶³ One version of the full baraita ⁶⁴ The entire text is also in Bereshit rabba ⁶⁵ The Tosephta which insists that one does not investigate but that the boy should not look too young. ⁶⁶ If he has reached the age, but we do not know whether he started growing pubic hair. The sentence speaks of all other occasions where one needs ten adult males, such as public prayer and Torah reading, but not of Grace which depends only on whether the child is able to eat an olive-size piece made of grain (in a country and time where children were usually nursed for between three and five years.) ⁶⁷ Where the Babli (47b) agrees that one may recite the invitation formula for ten adults. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:3) רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּמַה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים תַּמָּן קָטָן עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיפִין לַעֲשָׂרָה. וָמוֹר אַף הָכָא עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף לִֹשְלֹשָׁה. מַה תַּמָּן שֶׁמַּזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. כַּאן שֶׁאֵין מַזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָא אֵינוֹ כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. תָּמַּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן אוֹמְרִים אֶת הַשֵּׁם עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. וְכַאן שֶׁאֵין קוֹרִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Berekhiah said that Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose: “What are we dealing with? There⁶⁸ one makes him an appendix for ten, one should say that here⁶⁹ one should make him an appendix for three. Since there one makes him an appendix for the mention of the Divine Name, here, when one does not mention the Divine Name, *a fortiori* should one make him an appendix.” He answered him: “It is not *a fortiori*! There, since they must mention the Name⁷⁰, one makes him anappendix; here, since one does not recite the Name⁷¹, there is no need to make him an appendix!” footnotes: ⁶⁸ In the case of public reading of the Torah, as given in the next paragraph. ⁶⁹ Reciting Grace. ⁷⁰ In an obligatory public service. ⁷¹ In private. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:4) תַּנִּי קָטָן וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא קָטָן לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It has been stated: One may take a minor and a Torah scroll as appendix. Rebbi Judan said: So is the *baraita*: One may take a minor as appendix for the purpose of Torah reading⁷² is close to a statement of Rav Huna in the Babli (47b) which there is corrected differently.. footnotes: ⁷² But the Torah scroll is not a human and one never will get by with only eight adult males. The original baraita ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:5) מֵאֵימָתַי עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ סְנִיף. רִבִּי אֲבִינָא אֲמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רַב חוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ טִיב בְּרָכָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לְמִי הוּא מְבָרֵךְ. אֲמַר רִבִּי נָסָא כַמָּה זִימְנִין אֲכָלִית עִם רִבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא אַבָּא וְעִם אֲנִינִיָיא בַּר סִיסַיי חֲבִיבִי וְלָא זְמַנִּין עָלַי עַד שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** When does one start to make him an appendix? Rebbi Avina said: Rab Ḥuna and Rav Yehudah disagreed, both in the name of Samuel. One said, that he has to understand the nature of a benediction; the other one said that he has to understand to Whom one has to recite the benediction⁷³. Rebbi Nassa said, many times did I eat with my father Taḥlipha and my uncle Aninia bar Sisai and they did not recite the ‘invitation’ with me until I grew two pubic hairs⁷⁴. footnotes: ⁷³ In the Babli (48a), this is the opinion of Rav Naḥman, another student of Samuel. ⁷⁴ Since report of an action is the best proof, it is shown that one never uses a minor as appendix for reciting Grace with ‘invitation’. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:6) שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַב. וְאִית דְּאָמְרִין בְּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת. תִּשְׁעָה פַת וְאֶחָד יֶרֶק. אָמַר לוֹן מְזַמְּנִין. שְׁמֹנֶה פַת וּשְׁנַיִם יֶרֶק אָמַר לוֹן מְזַמְּנִין. שִׁבְעָה פַת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה יֶרֶק אָמַר לוֹן מְזַמְּנִין. רִבִּי אֲבִינָא בְּעִי מֶחְצָה לְמֶחְצָה מַהוּ. אֲמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן אִצְרִכַת לִי מַיצְרִי לִי מִינָךְ לָא שַׁלְתֵּיהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Samuel bar Shilat⁷⁵ asked before Rav, but some say that it was asked before Rav Samuel bar Shilat: Nine ate bread and one ate vegetable⁷⁶? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Eight ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Seven ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Rebbi Avina asked: What is the rule for half and half⁷⁷? Rebbi Zeïra said, as long as I was there, I would have needed that. I regret that I did not ask. footnotes: ⁷⁵ A student of Rav who is regarded as the ideal teacher in the Babli. For nine years he did not have time to tend his garden because he was caring about the children in his school. The title “Ribbi” given him in the next sentence is a scribal error. ⁷⁶ Nine are required to recite Grace. The tenth is only required to recite the short formula but he is there to form a quorum of ten adult males for the invocation of the Name. ⁷⁷ Does one need a majority of those who are required to recite Grace or is it enough to have ten adult males present. In the Babli (48a), Rebbi Zeïra is of the opinion that not only does one need a majority but one even needs a qualified majority and seven is the minimal number for reciting the ‘invitation’ with the Name. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:2:7) רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעִי אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יֶרֶק מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תַּנִּי שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נְזִירִין עָלוּ בִימֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים מָצָא לָהֶן פֶּתַח. וּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים לֹא מָצָא לָהֶן פֶּתַח. אֲתָא גַבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִית הָכָא תְּלַת מְאָה נְזִירִין בְּעִיָין תְּשַׁע מֵאָה קָרְבָּנִין. אֶלָּא יְהַב אַתְּ פַּלְגָּא מִן דִּידָךְ וַאֲנָא פַלְגָּא מִן דִּידִי. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין. אֲזַל לִישְׁנָא בִישָׁא וָמַר לֵיהּ לָא יְהַב מִן דִּידֵיהּ כְּלוּם. שָׁמַע יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא וְכָעַס. דְּחַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח וְעָרַק. בָּתַר יוֹמִין סָלְקוּן בְּנֵי נַשׁ רַבְרְבִין מִן מַלְכוּתָא דְפָרַס גַּבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא. מִן דְּיָתְבִין אָכְלִין אָמְרִין לֵיהּ נְהִירִין אֲנָן דַּהֲוָה אִית הָכָא חַד גְּבַר סָב וַהֲוָה אֲמַר קוֹמִין מִילִּין דְּחָכְמָה. תַּנִּי לוֹן עוּבְדָּא. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ שְׁלַח וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ שָׁלַח וִיהִב לֵיהּ מִילָּא וַאֲתָא וְיָתֵיב לֵיהּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה אַפְלַיָית בִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא אַפְלָיִית בָּךְ אַתְּ מִמָּמוֹנָךְ וַאֲנָא מִן אוֹרַיְיתִי. דִּכְתִיב כִּי בְצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכֶּסֶף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה עָרַקְתְּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמָעִית דְּמָרִי כְעַס עָלַי וּבְעִית מְקַיְימָה הָדֵין קְרִיָיא חֳבִי כִּמְעַט רֶגַע עַד יַעֲבֹר זָעַם. וּקְרָא עִלּוֹי וְיִתְרוֹן דַּעַת הַחָכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה בְעָלֶיהָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה יָתַבְתְּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּסִיפְרָא דְּבֶן סִירָא כְתִיב סַלְסְלֶיהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךָּ וּבֵין נְגִידִים תּוֹשִׁיבֶךָּ. אֲמַר הֲבוּ לֵיהּ כַּסָּא דְּלִיבְרִיךְ. נְסַב כַּסָּא וָמַר נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַל יַנַּאי וַחֲבֵירָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ עַד כְּדוֹן אַתְּ בְּקַשְׁיוּתָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמַה נֹאמַר עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְנוּ. אֲמַר הֲבוּן לֵיהּ דְּלֵיכוּל. יְהָבוּ לֵיהּ וְאָכַל. וָמַר נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חוֹלְקִין עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. רִבִּי אָבָּא אָמַר עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּיה. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָתָם צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. וָכָה פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. הֵּן דִּצְרִיכָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּנָן הֵן דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. תַּנִּי עֲלָהּ הֵיסֶב וְאָכַל עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל כְּזַיִת דָּגָן מְזַמְּנִין דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְעוֹלָם אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת דָּגָן. תַנִּי שְׁנַיִם פַּת וְאֶחָד יֶרֶק מְזַמְּנִין. מַתְנִיתָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May he who ate vegetable recite Grace? Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself⁷⁸! It has been stated: 300 *nezirim*⁷⁹ could terminate his vow only if he offered a sheep as holocaust sacrifice, a female sheep for a sin-offering, and a goat for a family sacrifice (*Num.* 6). Most of these *nezirim* were poor people who relied on charity to fulfill their obligations in the Temple. came in the days of Simeon ben Shetaḥ⁸⁰. For 150 of them he found an opening⁸¹ regret his original decision to become a *nazir*; this invalidates the vow retroactively so that no sacrifice may be brought., for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 *nezirim* who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ feared and fled⁸². After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai⁸³. At the meal, they said to him: We remember that there was here an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. He told them what had happened. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word⁸⁴; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (*Eccl.* 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money⁸⁵.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (*Is.* 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (*Eccl.* 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach⁸⁶: “Esteem it and it will raise you and set you between princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. He took the cup and said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, are you still obstinate as ever? He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action⁸⁷ 51. [In the Babli, 48a, it is R. Abba the son of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Yoḥanan who declares that Grace cannot be recited by someone who did not eat bread. But the Babli cannot be used for the text of the Yerushalmi.]; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here⁸⁸ it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious for him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one was lying on a couch and ate⁸⁹ 5:5, and the prints of the Midrash, this is labelled “words of the Sages.” But in the Tosephta (5:20) and manuscripts of the Midrash (and in the Babli 48a), the statement is attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It seems that the attribution here to the Sages is a scribal error since the opinion attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the last *baraita* is the one given in the Tosephta and R. Jeremiah is reported as following the latter’s opinion in the interpretation of the story of Simeon ben Shetaḥ. with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he had eaten grain the volume of an olive⁹⁰. But did we not formulate, “two bread and one vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This *baraita* follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. footnotes: ⁷⁸ The contradiction will be explained in the following lengthy story. ⁷⁹ People who made a vow to abstain from all grape products, let their hair grow, and kept themselves in strict ritual purity for a certain amount of time. At the end of that time, the nazir ⁸⁰ President of the Synhedrion in the times of the Hasmonean king Alexander Yannai and brother of queen Shlomẓion (Salome Alexandra). ⁸¹ An “opening of regrets”, an argument that made the nazir ⁸² In the parallel in the Babli (48ab), Simeon ben Shetaḥ went into hiding because Alexander Yannai sided with the Sadducees when it was reported to him that some Pharisees thought him to be unfit as priest. ⁸³ During all of the Second Commonwealth and certainly during the reign of Alexander Yannai, the Jewish state relied on contributions from the Jews in the diaspora, both from Rome and from Persia (then, Parthia). It may be assumed that the delegation brought the yearly subsidy and, therefore, was in a position to enforce their will. ⁸⁴ That it was safe and nothing would happen to him. In the Babli, it was the queen, Simeon’s sister, who arranged matters. ⁸⁵ Wisdom and money are equivalent to give protection. ⁸⁶ This verse cannot be reconstructed with confidence, since the manuscripts of the Babli and parallel sources all have different versions. ⁸⁷ That he tricked Yannai to give the animals for sacrifices under false pretenses, even though formally Simeon ben Shetaḥ was correct. The second action was that he refused to recite Grace without having eaten at least a minimal meal.The text here is clearly corrupt since by the statement of the Talmud, Rebbi Jeremiah disagrees with Simeon ben Shetaḥ about the recitation of Grace. The correct text, that R. Abba refers to the first action and R. Jeremiah to the second, is in the Yerushalmi source Midrash Bereshit rabba ⁸⁸ In his theoretical question he wonders, in his critique of Simeon ben Shetaḥ following R. Yoḥanan he is certain. ⁸⁹ In the Midrash, the Rome manuscript, the Tosephta, (and the Babli) “dipped (some vegetable in broth)”. Both in the Yerushalmi, here and Nazir ⁹⁰ In the restrictive spirit of the Yerushalmi as explained earlier. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:1) **משנה:** כֵּיצַד מְזַמְּנִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ. בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהֵינוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. אֶחָד עֲשָׂרָה וְאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר רִבּוֹא. בְּמֵאָה אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ לַיי אֱלֹהֵינוּ. בְּמֵאָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בְּאֶלֶף אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ לַיי אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּאֶלֶף וְהוּא אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בְּרִבּוֹא אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ לַיי אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרוּבִים עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר לְפִי רוֹב הַקָּהָל מְבָרְכִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים יי מִמְּקוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מַה מָצִינוּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת אֶחָד מְרוּבִּין וְאֶחָד מוּעָטִין אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ אֶת יי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעְאֵל אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ אֶת יי הַמְבוֹרָךְ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** How does one ‘invite’? If there are three, he says: let us praise⁹¹. If there are three in addition to himself, he says: praise!⁹² If there are ten, he says: let us praise our God. If there are ten in addition to himself, he says: praise! There is no difference between ten and ten myriads⁹³. If there are a hundred, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God. If there are a hundred in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are a thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel. If there are a thousand in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are ten thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who thrones over the Cherubim, for the food that we ate. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the praise has to be according to the multitude of the assembled, as it is said (*Ps.* 68:27): “In assemblies⁹⁴ praise God, the Lord, from the root of Israel.” Rebbi Aqiba said, do we not find in the synagoge that one recites “Praise the Eternal” whether there are many or few? Rebbi Ismael says, “Praise the Eternal, the Praised One!”¹¹⁰ footnotes: ⁹¹ The changes apply only to the start of the invitation; in all cases one continues with “Him, Whose food we ate”. ⁹² Since there are three without him, he may address them without including himself. ⁹³ This is the majority opinion; the rest of the Mishnah is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as explained at the end of the Mishnah. ⁹⁴ It will be clear in the Halakhah that the difference between the Sages and R. Yose the Galilean is in the interpretation of this word, whether it means “assemblies”, i. e., different assemblies recite different praises, or “choirs” that all sing together. ¹¹⁰ This Mishnah is sequel to the preceding one and presents the argument of the Sages against Rebbi Yose the Galilean. The difference in text between the two authorities already was discussed in the preceding Halakhah. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:2) **הלכה:** דְּלֹּמָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר בָּא רִבִּי חֲנִינָא חֲבֵרוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן הֲווּ יָתְבִין אָכְלִין. נְסָב רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא כַּסָּא וּבֵירַךְ וַאֲמַר נְבָרֵךְ וְלָא אֲמַר בָּרְכוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר בָּא. וְלָמָּה לֹא אָמַרְתָּ בָּרְכוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּי אֵין מְדַקְדְקִין בַּדָּבָר. בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר נְבָרֵךְ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר בָּרְכוּ אֵין תּוֹפְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כַּךְ. וְהַנּוֹקְדָּנִין תּוֹפְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כַּךְ. וּבְאִישׁ לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּגִין דִּצְוַוח רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא לְרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר [בָּא] נוֹקְדָנָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Clarification. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis, were sitting and eating together. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa took the cup⁹⁵ and said “let us praise”, he did not say: “praise!”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked him, why did you not say “praise!” He said to him, did we not state⁹⁶ 5:18, Babli 50a.: “One does not insist on the formulation. Whether he says ‘let us praise’, or he says ‘praise!’, one does not criticize him, but the pedants⁹⁷ is נקרנין “nitpickers.” The Babli (50a) interprets the Tosephta to mean that “praise!” is acceptable but not preferred; the Yerushalmi seems to accept Samuel’s statement (also Babli 49b) at face value that “praise!” should not be used in practice. criticize him for that.” Rebbi Zeïra felt badly that Rebbi Jacob bar Abba had called Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba a pedant. footnotes: ⁹⁵ The cup of wine over which Grace is recited. Since there were four sages eating together, the Mishnah would require that he start with “praise!”. ⁹⁶ Tosephta Berakhot ⁹⁷ The reading of the Arukh ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:3) שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֵינִי מוֹצִיא אֶת עַצְמִי מִן הַכְּלָל. הוֹתִיבוּן הֲרֵי בִּרְכַת הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן מִכֵּיוָן דְּיֵימַר הַמְּבוֹרָךְ אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא עַצְמוֹ מִן הַכְּלָל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Samuel said: I do not want to exclude myself from the group⁹⁸. They objected: look at the benediction for the Torah where he says “praise!” Rebbi Abun said, since he will conclude by “the Praised One”, he does not exclude himself from the group.⁹⁹ footnotes: ⁹⁸ In the Babli, Samuel is quoted as saying “nobody should exclude himself from the group” as obligatory ruling, whereas here he is quoted as stating his personal preference for נברך against the Mishnah. ⁹⁹ It is explained in the next Mishnah that the benediction for reading the Torah starts with “Praise the Eternal” according to Rebbi Aqiba, and “Praise the Eternal, the Praised One” according to Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Abun indicates that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. The Babli (50a) indicates that in Torah reading, the people forced adherence to the opinion of R. Ismael, apparently against the resistance of some rabbis (called “black vessels” by Rava) who preferred to follow Rebbi Aqiba. It seems that R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, a native Babylonian, felt that R. Jacob bar Aḥa was following the uneducated, but in Galilee everybody followed Samuel and popular opinion. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:4) רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא הֲוָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ קוֹמֵי זְעִירָא. מְזַג לֵיהּ כַּסָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ סָב בְּרִיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְהַב דַעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ מִישְׁתִּי חוֹרָנָה. דְּתַנִּי הַשַּׁמָּשׁ מְבָרֵךְ עַל כָּל כּוֹס וְכוֹס. וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עַל כָּל פְּרוּסָה וּפְרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כְּמָא דַּאֲנָא יְהַב דַּעְתִּי מַפְקָא יָתָיךְ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָךְ בְּבִרְכָתָה. כֵּן הַב דַּעְתָּךְ מַפְקָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתִי בְאָמֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר יִרְמְיָה מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן הַמִּתְעַסֵּק לֹא יָצָא וְהַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִן הַמִּתְעַסֵּק לֹא יָצָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He¹⁰⁰ said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup¹⁰¹ 107b), this *baraita* is a statement of Rav and is restricted there to formal dinners. The Babli also quotes an opinion of the Galilean R. Yoḥanan that for solid food also the waiter cannot make a benediction for the uncertain future; since this is not mentioned here one has to conclude that the Yerushalmi rejects the distinction made in the Babli. but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation¹⁰² but is valid for all obligations that may be fulfilled by listening.) by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah¹⁰³ said, a Mishnah (*Rosh Hashanah* 4:8) states this: The absent-minded¹⁰⁴ in order to learn the technique cannot by the same act fulfill his obligation, neither can anyone who hears him. But in our application, the intended meaning is “absent-minded.” R. Abba bar Zamina’s implication is that in hearing a benediction one must answer “Amen” in order to make sure that the listener is not absent-minded either. This explains the placing of this paragraph here, following another one where also one person recites Grace in order for all others (even a hundred thousand) to be freed from their obligation. did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation. footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ The last two words are not in the Rome manuscript and are probably dittography. ¹⁰¹ Since he cannot expect to get another cup, he cannot have the intention to make one benediction for more than one cup. On the other hand, in the opinion of the Yerushalmi the waiter will always have occasion to eat some food from the kitchen, hence he may make a benediction for the future. In the Babli (Ḥulin ¹⁰² All commentators except R. Moshe Margalit declare this passage to be corrupt and that it should read מַפְקָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתָךְ “fulfill your obligation”; this seems to be required by the following quote (which is formulated for sounding the shofar ¹⁰³ A student of R. Mana II of the fifth generation. ¹⁰⁴ The word means usually “absentminded” but can also mean “practicing” and that probably is the primary meaning in this Mishnah, that one who blows the shofar ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:5) בְּמֵאָה אוֹמֵר כו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן זוּ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים אֶחָד עֶשֶׂר וְאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר רִיבּוֹא. רָבָא אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּמִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר אֶחָד עֶשֶׂר וְאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר רִיבּוֹא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If there are a hundred” etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jose the Galilean, but the Sages say “there is no difference between ten and ten myriads”. Rava¹⁰⁵ 1:3 (fol. 60b)] as Rebbi (!) Abba bar Josef [in the parallel in the Babli, based on the Yerushalmi, his full name is given as Rava bar Rav Josef bar Ḥama in contrast to Babylonian material where his name consistently is only Rava]. In the Babli, (50a) Rava is quoted as saying that “the people follow R. Ismael”, i. e., there is no binding ruling in the matter but a silent consensus, whereas the statement in the Yerushalmi indicates a rabbinic ruling. said, practice follows him who states that there is no difference between ten and ten myriads. footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ It seems that here an apostrophe is missing and the name is R. Abba who is frequently mentioned in the Yerushalmi, rather than Rava (Rav Abba), one of the architects of dialectics in the Babli who lived at the time when the work on the Yerushalmi came to an end. The latter is mentioned only once in the Yerushalmi [Beẓa ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:6) מְנַיִין לְעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה. רִבִּי בָּא וְרִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נֶאֱמַר כַּאן עֵדָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֵדָה. מַה עֵדָה שֶׁנֵּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה. אַף עֵדָה שֶׁנֵּאֱמַר כַּאן עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן נֶאֱמַר כַּאן תּוֹךְ וְנֵאֱמַר לְהַלָּן תּוֹךְ וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבּוֹר בָּר בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּאִים. מַה תוֹךְ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה. אַף כַּאן עֲשָׂרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן כִּי אִם מִתּוֹךְ אַתְּ יְלִיף לָהּ סַגִּין אִינוּן. אֶלָּא נֶאֱמַר כַּאן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עֲשָׂרָה. אַף כַּאן עֲשָׂרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** From where that “congregation” means ten people¹⁰⁶ 19:2 “Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel and tell them: conduct yourselves in holiness because I, The Eternal, your God, Am Holy” and *Lev.* 22:32 “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel.” The same discussion is reported *Megillah* 4:4, *Sanhedrin* 1:4. The parallel discussion in the Babli, *Megillah* 23a, in the name of the first generation Rebbi Ḥiyya, is based on the second verse and is intelligible only if it is understood as reference to the derivation in the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It is said here “congregation” and it says there¹⁰⁷ 19:2, “there” to *Num.* 14:27: “How long for this evil congregation”, speaking of the ten spies who argued against entering the Land. There were twelve spies in all; Joshua and Caleb were in the opposition; accordingly there were ten evil persons who formed the congregation. “congregation”. Since “congregation” mentioned there means ten, so also “congregation” mentioned here must mean ten. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here “in the midst” and it is said there “in the midst” (*Gen.* 42:5): “The sons of Israel came to buy grain in the midst of those who came.” Since “in the midst” said there means ten, so also here it must mean ten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, if you deduce from “in the midst”, there are too many of them¹⁰⁸ 22:32, “in the midst” must mean 600’000 adult males. In the Babli, *Lev.* 22:32 is used to establish a formal parallel, known as *gezerah shawah*, between this verse and the one from Genesis. The latter verse is then used to arrive at the number ten (since of the twelve tribes, Joseph and Benjamin were missing). From the Babli it seems that there was a tradition linking the two verses (since in its opinion, *gezerah shawah* must be based on a tradition) and, therefore, R. Simon is forced to quote a verse that in itself seems to be less adequate than the one used before.. But it is said here “the children of Israel” and it is said there “the children of Israel.” Since “children of Israel” said there means ten, so here it also must mean ten. footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The discussion here is to prove that for a public invocation of the Name one needs a congregation of at least ten adult males. The relevant verses are Lev. ¹⁰⁷ “Here” refers to Lev. ¹⁰⁸ In particular, in Lev. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:7) מַה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנָן טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בְּכָל קְהִילָּה וּקְהִילָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ במקהלת כְּתִיב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** How do the Sages use the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “In assemblies”, in each separate congregation. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written במקהלת¹⁰⁹ to support the position of the Sages; the Masorah to *Num.* 32:25/26 (composed several centuries after the conclusion of the Talmudim) notes that מקהלת appears as geographical name only in *Num.* and that in Psalms, מקהלוֹת is a *hapax legomenon*. The parallel Babli (50a) refers the verse in Psalms, in the name of R. Meir, to the choir of children at the Red Sea, a tradition more justly attributed to Rabban Gamliel in Yerushalmi *Soṭa* 5:6.. footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ The opinion of the sages is that the plural “assemblies” points to different assemblies at different places and not to different categories of the same assembly. R. Ḥanina notes that in R. Yose the Galilean’s tradition, the word was written defective and could be read as a singular מִקְהֶלֶת “assembly”. Hence, if the word is vocalized as a plural, it is an ideal plural that refers to different stages of the same assembly. In all our sources, the word in Psalms is written plene ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:8) אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה מַה מָּצִינוּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת כו׳‏. רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי קָם מִקְרֵי בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא וְאָמַר בָּרְכוּ וְלֹא אָמַר הַמְבוֹרָךְ. בְּעוּן מִישְׁתּוּקִינֵיהּ אֲמַר לָהֶן רַב אַרְפּוּנֵיהּ. דִּנְהִיג כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא קָם מִקְרֵי כֹּהֶן בִּמְקוֹם לֵוִי וּבֵירַךְ לְפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ וּבְעוּן מִישְׁתּוּקִינֵיהּ אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי אַרְפּוּנֵיהּ. דְּכֵן אִינּוּן נְהִיגִין גַּבֵּיְיהוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi rose to read in the Torah and said “Praise the Eternal,” he did not add “the Praised One!” They wanted to silence him. Rav said to them, let him, because he follows Rebbi Aqiba¹¹¹ in reciting liturgical poems in the prayers, whereas the autochthonous Yeshivah of Pum Beditha (Nahardea) never recited them.] Rav Ḥiyya Bar Ashi became a member of Rav’s Yeshivah but kept the old Babylonian *minhag* following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav had to explain to his students that this way also is acceptable. The parallel in the Babli (50a) tells a similar story about Rafrem bar Papa, a student of Rav’s student Rav Huna; there, Rava notes that even in Babylonia “the people follow Rebbi Ismaël.” This shows that common practice was settled only three generations after Rav. (The Rome ms. has “Rav Ada” instead of “Rav”. Since Rav Ada was one of Rav’s students, ranking much below Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the reading has to be rejected.). Rebbi Zeïra rose to read as Cohen in place of a Levite and recited the benediction before and after. They wanted to silence him. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said to them, let him, because that is their way of doing it¹¹² 3:1, was that the first to read in the Torah pronounced the benediction before the reading and the last one the benediction after the reading. Even in Mishnaic times it became customary that every reader recited his own benediction. Here, Rebbi Zeïra had read his portion as Cohen; in the absence of a Levite he was called a second time to read and he started by reciting the benedictions again. It is reported in the Babli (*Avodah Zarah* 16b) that R. Zeïra studied some time in the Yeshivah of R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi after having been ordained by Rav Yehudah and before his immigration to Galilee. The action of R. Zeïra, therefore, reflects the practice of the Yeshivah of Nahardea.. footnotes: ¹¹¹ The title “Rebbi” found twice in the text is a scribal error; Rav Ḥiyya Bar Ashi never went to Israel.It seems that Rav, when he returned to Babylonia from his studies in Galilee, followed the Galilean order of prayers. [Even centuries later, we still find that Rav’s Yeshivah in Surah followed the minhag Eretz Israel ¹¹² This second story deals with another subject. The original practice, as spelled out in the Mishnah Megillah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:3:9) כְּתִיב וַיְבָרֶךְ עֶזְרָא אֵת יי [הָאֱלֹהִים] הַגָּדוֹל. בְּמַה הוּא גוֹדְלוֹ. גּוֹדְלוֹ בְשֵׁם הַמְפוֹרָשׁ. רַב מַתָּנָה אָמַר גּוֹדְלוֹ בִּבְרָכָה. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לָמָּה נִקְרוּ אַנְשֵּׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּ הַגְּדוּלָּה לְיוֹשְׁנָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי פִּינְחָס מֹשֶׁה הִתְקִין מַטְבְּעָהּ שֶׁל תְּפִילָּה הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּיבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא. יִרְמְיָה אָמַר הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּיבּוֹר וְלֹא אָמַר הַנּוֹרָא. לָמָּה אָמַר הַגִּיבּוֹר לְזֶה נָאֶה לִקְרוֹת גִּיבּוֹר שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה חוּרְבָּן בֵּיתוֹ וְשׁוֹתֵק. וְלָמָּה לֹא אָמַר נוֹרָא אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין נוֹרָא אֶלָּא בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נוֹרָא אֱלֹהִים מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ. דָּנִיֵּאל אָמַר הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא וְלֹא אָמַר הַגִּבּוֹר בְּנָיו מְסוּרִין בְּקוֹלָרִין הֵיכָן הִיא גְּבוּרָתוֹ. וְלָמָּה אָמַר הַנּוֹרָא. לְזֶה נָאֶה לִקְרוֹת נוֹרָא בְּנוֹרָאוֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה לָנוּ בְּכִבְשָׁן הָאֵשׁ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָמְדוּ אַנְשֵּׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה הֶחֱזִירוּ הַגְּדוּלָּה לְיוֹשְׁנָהּ. הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּיבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא. וּבָשָׂר וְדָם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֹּחַ לִיתֵּן קִצְּבָה לַדְּבָרִים הַלָלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר יוֹדְעִין הֵן הַנְבִיאִיִּם שֶׁאֱלוֹהֵן אֶמֶּת וְאֵינָן מַחֲנִיפִין לוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It is written (*Neh.* 8:6): “Ezra praised the Eternal, the great God.” In what did he declare Him great? He declared Him great by the Explicit Name¹¹³. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by a benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the Men of the Great Assembly¹¹⁴ 3:8; in Babli *Yoma* 69b it is spelled out that Rav Mattanah means the first benediction of the *‘Amidah* that contains the sentence “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God” chosen by the Men of the Great Assembly, and the observation of R. Joshua ben Levi is intended to buttress the argument of Rav Mattanah.? Because they returned the Crown to its former status. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses fixed the formula of benediction, (*Deut.* 10:17) “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Jeremiah said (*Jer.* 32:18): “the Great, Strong God,” but he left out “Awesome.” Why did he say “the Strong”? He may rightly be called strong because He sees the destruction and is silent. And why did he not say “the Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is said (*Ps.* 68:36): “Awesome is the Eternal from Your holy place.” Daniel said (*Dan.* 9:4)¹¹⁵ 1:5.: “the Great and Awesome God,” he did not say “the Strong”; His sons are put in neck-irons¹¹⁶ “neck-iron.”, where is His strength? Why did he say: “the Awesome?” He may well be called “the Awesome” by the wonders He did for us in the fiery oven. But when the Men of the Great Assembly came,they restituted Greatness to its former place, “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Does flesh and blood have power to set limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar¹¹⁷ said, the prophets know that their God is Truth and they will not fawn before him. footnotes: ¹¹³ The name YHWH pronounced with the correct vocalization that is unknown to us. ¹¹⁴ The parallel is in Megillah ¹¹⁵ The same expression is used by Nehemiah, Neh. ¹¹⁶ Latin collare ¹¹⁷ There were two sages of this name, one a student of R. Yoḥanan and the other in the fourth generation, a colleague of R. Mana. In the Babli, the statement is attributed to R. Eleazar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:4:1) **משנה:** רַשָּׁאִין לֵיחָלֵק כו׳. שְׁלוֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת אֵינָן רְשָׁאִין לֵיחָלֵק וְכֵן אַרְבָּעָה וְכֵן חֲמִשָּׁה. שִׁשָּׁה נֶחְלָקִין עַד עֲשָׂרָה. וַעֲשָׂרָה אֵינָן נֶחֱלָקִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ עֶשְׂרִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Three who ate together are not permitted to split¹¹⁸, neither are four or five. Six may split and so on up to ten. Ten may not split and so on unless they are twenty. footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Since three together are required to recite the “invitation” whereas two or one do not recite it; the minimum number required for two separate recitations of Grace is six. Nine may form three groups, but ten are required to recite the “invitation” with an invocation of the Name. Hence, 10 to 19 people in a group may not split in the recitation of Grace. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:4:2) **הלכה:** תַּנִּי הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְאוֹכֵל בְּשַׁבָּת וְשָׁכַח וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שֶׁל שַׁבָּת. רַב אָמַר חוֹזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** It was stated: If one was eating sitting down on Sabbath and forgot and did not mention Sabbath, Rav said: he must repeat, and Samuel said: he need not repeat¹¹⁹ 8:10 cannot be a reason for repeating Grace.. footnotes: ¹¹⁹ In the parallel in the Babli, 49b, the opinion of Samuel is not mentioned; even Rav Naḥman, the student of Samuel, is reported to follow the ruling of Rav. Later commentators state that, since on the Sabbath one may not fast, eating on the Sabbath is a consequence of it being Sabbath and the Sabbath has to be mentioned in reciting Grace. Samuel might be of the opinion that anything not mentioned in the verse Deut. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:4:3) שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָפֵק הִזְכִּיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ. סָפֵק לֹא הִזְכִּיר אֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנִּי וּפַלִּיג. כָּל יוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קָרְבַּן מוּסָף כְּגוֹן רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ וְחוֹלוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר מֵעֵין הַמְּאוֹרָע אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קָרְבַּן מוּסָף כְּגוֹן חֲנוּכָּה וּפוּרִים צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר מֵעֵין הַמְּאוֹרָע אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר אֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: If one is in doubt whether he mentioned the New Moon or did not mention it, one does not make him repeat¹²⁰ Babli have “Rav” instead of “Samuel”; this seems to be the correct reading. According to the Babli, one does not have to repeat even if he is sure that he did not mention the day; according to the way the Yerushalmi quotes the formulation, one has to repeat even if there was only a doubt that he did not mention the day.. They found a dissenting statement: On every day that has a *Musaph* sacrifice (e. g., the day of the new moon and the intermediate days of holidays,) he must mention the occasion and if he did not mention it, one makes him repeat. But on every day that has no *Musaph* sacrifice (e. g., Hanukkah and Purim,) he must mention the occasion but if he did not, one does not make him repeat. footnotes: ¹²⁰ In the Babli (49b) there is a similar statement by Rav Naḥman in the name of Samuel that, if someone forgot the day of the New Moon in Grace, one does not make him repeat. According to the Yerushalmi, that seems obvious as the opinion of Samuel. However, the mention of Samuel is not in the Munich manuscript of the Babli, and the Spanish incunabula prints of Berakhot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:4:4) חָנָן בַּר אַבָּא וַחֲבֵרָיָיא הֲווּ יָתְבִין אָכְלִין בְּשַׁבָּתָא. מִן דְּאָכְלִין וּבָרְכִין קָם אֲזַל לֵיהּ. חֲזַר לְגַבָּן אַשְׁכַּחְנוּן בָּרְכִין. אֲמַר וְלֹא כְּבָר בֵּירַכְנוּ. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ מְבָרְכִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְבָרְכִין דַּאֲשַׁכְּחָן מַדְכְּרָא דְשַׁבָּתָא. לָא אֲמַר כֵּן רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מָטוּ בָהּ בְשֵׁם רַב שָׁכַח וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שֶׁל שַׁבָּת אוֹמֵר אֲשֶׁר נָתַן מְנוּחָה לְעַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל. כַּן בְּשֶׁהִסִּיעַ דַּעְתּוֹ וְכַן בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִסִּיעַ דַּעְתּוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Ḥanan bar Abba and the colleagues were eating on Sabbath. After they had eaten and recited Grace he got up and left. When he returned, he found them reciting Grace. He said, did we not recite Grace already? They said to him, we recited, but now we recite again because we forgot to mention the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav¹²¹ Huna (Rav Jeremiah extends it in the name of Rav) did not say so: If he forgot to mention the Sabbath, he says: He¹²² Who gave rest to His people Israel. Here¹²³ if he turned¹²⁴ his mind away, there if he did not turn his mind away. footnotes: ¹²¹ The titles of Huna and Jeremiah must be Rav, not Rebbi as in the Hebrew text, since the entire discussion is between students of Rav. ¹²² The full benediction would be: Praised are You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who gave.… ¹²³ One has to repeat if he turned from reciting Grace to other activities; one recites an addtional benediction if he realizes the omission before he has finished. The Babli (49a/b) gives the full text of this benediction and the corresponding one for holidays, but there it is authorized only (in the name of Rav) if one realizes the omission before one starts the next benediction. This certainly is not the position of the Yerushalmi. ¹²⁴ הסיע “he moved away”, appears in the Babli as הסיח ; ע or ח were inaudible in Babylonian speech. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:4:5) תַּנִּי עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶּׁכּוּלָּם אוֹכְלִין מִכִּכָּר אֶחָד כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ לְעַצְמוֹ. יָשְׁבוּ וְאָכְלוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אוֹכֵל מִכִּכָּר עַצְמוֹ אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ עַל יְדֵי כוּלָּם. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה זְמִין לַחֲבֵרָיָה בְּפוּנְדָקָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It is stated¹²⁵ 5:23. In both these texts, the second sentence reads “if they sat down to eat”; this is interpreted in the Babli to mean that they are sitting together by a common decision. Hence, they form a group and have to recite Grace together. The language of the Yerushalmi, “they sat down and ate,” points to a spontaneous act that would not require Grace to be recited in common in the opinion of the Babli.: Ten people walking on the road, even if all of them eat from the same loaf, each one recites Grace for himself. If they sat down and ate, even though each one eats his own loaf, one recites Grace for all of them. Rebbi Jeremiah “invited” his colleagues at an inn¹²⁶. footnotes: ¹²⁵ A similar text appears in Babli 42a and Tosephta Berakhot ¹²⁶ It is assumed that everybody pays for his own meal (or, if the hostelry has no restaurant, eats from his own provisions) in an inn and, also, that the formation of the group is casual rather than planned. Nevertheless, they have to recite Grace together; see the preceding note. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:1) **משנה:** שְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין בְּבַיִת אֶחָד בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵילּוּ אֶת אֵילּוּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לְזִימּוּן. וְאִם לָאו אֵילּוּ מְזַמְּנִין לְעַצְמָן וְאֵילּוּ מְזַמְּנִין לְעַצְמָן. וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַיַּיִן עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְבָרְכִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Two groups that ate in one house, if some of one group saw some of the other group they join in “invitation”; otherwise, each group recites the “invitation” for itself. One does not recite a benediction over wine¹²⁶ unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction. footnotes: ¹²⁶ It is assumed that everybody pays for his own meal (or, if the hostelry has no restaurant, eats from his own provisions) in an inn and, also, that the formation of the group is casual rather than planned. Nevertheless, they have to recite Grace together; see the preceding note. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:2) **הלכה:** שְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין בְּבַיִת אֶחָד כו׳‏. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זָמִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא לִשְׁנֵי בָתִּים נִצְרְכָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: For two houses, there is a problem¹²⁷ 50b read the statement as: “[The Mishnah] is only needed for two houses,” the inference being that if they see one another they can join in saying Grace. This transfers the meaning of Babylonian צריכא (“it is necessary”) to the Palestinian expression נצרכה (“it is problematic”) used here!}. footnotes: ¹²⁷ The Mishnah gives the rule for two groups assembled at different places in one house. The problem of two groups which eat in different houses but see one another is not treated and one may make arguments both ways. {Tosaphot in Babli ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:3) אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהֵן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַל מְנָת כֵּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yoḥanan said, it applies only if they entered with that in mind¹²⁸. footnotes: ¹²⁸ R. Yoḥanan refers to the Mishnah: Two groups not in the same room may recite common Grace only if they started the meal with that intention. This corresponds to the opinion of Babli and Tosephta in the case of the caravan travelling together, discussed at the end of the previous Halakhah. However, since it is necessary to state this rule for people in two different rooms, it follows that the Yerushalmi does not require common intent for people in one room; R. Yoḥanan agrees with his student’s student R. Jeremiah in the preceding Halakhah. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:4) אִילֵּין בֵּית נְשִׂאֵי מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לוֹן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד אוּ בִשְׁנֵי בָּתִּים. נֹאמַר אִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּן לַעֲבוֹר אֵילּוּ עַל אֵילּוּ מְזַמְּנִין. וְאִם לָאו אֵין מְזַמְּנִין. רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה מוֹקִים לַאֲמוֹרֵיהּ עַל תַּרְעָא מְצִיעְיָא דְּבֵי מִדְרָשָּׁא וְהוּא מְזַמֵּן עַל אִילֵּין וְעַל אִילֵּין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** What do you do with those at the house of the patriarch, like one house or like two houses¹²⁹? Let us say that if they usually walk over from one group to the other then they “invite” together; otherwise they do not “invite” together. Rebbi Berekhiah used to place his speaker in the middle of the door of the house of study and he recited the “invitation” together with both groups¹³⁰. footnotes: ¹²⁹ The Babli (50a) notes that at a dinner in the house of the Resh Galuta, the head of the Jews of Babylonia, one recites Grace in small groups since the place is so noisy that one could not hear a person at the dais reciting Grace. Here it seems that the Patriarch held his formal dinners in a very large hall with several groups forming circles and not communicating with one another. The question is whether the room acts as a common enclosure for all these groups or not. ¹³⁰ The meals in the Yeshivah were taken in two adjacent rooms. A similar note in the Babli (50b) states that if the same waiter waits upon several groups in a very large room, the waiter makes them one group. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:5) אֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַיַּיִן עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְבָרְכִין. רִבִּי זְרִיקָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חִינְנָא מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּכוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהוּא. נְהִיגִין רַבָּנָן בְּהָהֵן כַּסָּא דְקִידּוּשָׁא. מִילְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה טָעַם כַּסָּא וּמְתַקֵּן לָהּ. אִין תֵימַר שֶׁהוּא מָזוּג. וְהָתַנִּי הַשּׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין מְזוּגִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן הַלַּיְלָה דָּמוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהֵן שֶׁלָּנוּ בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace¹³¹. The rabbis do so for the *Qiddush* cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it¹³² of Friday evening, then left the rest standing in the cup and “repaired” it the next morning by filling it again with more wine. As will be explained later in this Halakhah, a cup that has been drunk from cannot be used for another benediction; hence, it has to be replenished. The question is, if R. Jonah put water into his *Qiddush* cup, how could he leave it standing half full through the night?. If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels¹³³ 17a); the *baraita* is very close to the text in *Derekh Ereẓ Rabba,* Chapter 11. Both of these sources give a list of things that are dangerous to one’s health. In the Yerushalmi, the statement of R. Yoḥanan answers the question raised: R. Jonah might add water to his wine as long as his cup was not of metal.. footnotes: ¹³¹ Because that is the civilized way of acting and religious obligations should be executed with dignity. ¹³² Rebbi Jonah tasted from the cup for Qiddush ¹³³ The last two statements are also in the Babli (Niddah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:6) רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ שׁוֹאֲלִין שְׂמֹאל מַהוּ שֶׁתְּסַיֵיעַ לִימִין בְּכוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תְּלָת. אַתְּ שְׁמַע שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְתוֹפְסוֹ בִּימִין. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתְּהֵא יָדוֹ גְבוֹהָה מִן הַשּׁוּלְחָן טֶפַח. צָרִיךְ שֶׁנּוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בּוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jeremiah¹³⁴ in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The first generations asked whether the left hand may help the right hand with the cup used for reciting Grace. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one must hold the cup with his right hand¹³⁵, that one’s hand must be lifted from the table at least a hand-breadth¹³⁶, and that one has to look at the cup¹³⁷. footnotes: ¹³⁴ The parallel statement in the Babli (51a) is in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. The inferences are not given there but they follow from the parallel to the next statement. ¹³⁵ If the left hand only is required to help, the main action is done by the right hand. ¹³⁶ For a lesser height than a handbreadth (one sixth of a cubit), no help would be necessary. ¹³⁷ Otherwise, it would not be necessary to lift the cup during recital of the benedictions. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:7) אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּכוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה מָלֵא. עִיטּוּר. וּמוּדָּח. וּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד נַפְתָּלִי שְׂבַע רָצוֹן וּמָלֵא בִּרְכַּת יי. שְׂבַע עִיטּוּר. רָצוֹן מוּדָּח. מָלֵא כְמַשְׁמָעוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אִם עָשִׂיתָה כֵן מַה כְתִיב תַּמָּן יָם וְדָרוֹם יְרָשָׁה. אַתְּ זוֹכֶה לִירַשׁ הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Aḥa said: Three things were said about the cup of Grace: full, decorated, and washed. All three come from one verse (*Deut.* 33:23): “Naphtali is satiated with goodwill, full of the blessings of the Eternal.” Satiated - decorated¹³⁸, goodwill - washed¹³⁹, full as its acception. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you did so, what is written there: “West and South his inheritance,” you merit to inherit this world and the world to come¹⁴⁰. footnotes: ¹³⁸ There are different lists in the Babli (51a); one also mentions “decorated” and different interpretations are given. Rav Yehudah is reported to have surrounded himself with his students when he recited Grace over a cup of wine; Rav Ḥisda surrounded the (larger) cup of benediction with smaller cups that presumably were filled with wine. This second interpretation seems to be the one original with the Yerushalmi which identifies satiated with decorated, i. e., more than enough wine to fulfill every desire. ¹³⁹ So that everybody would willingly take the cup and drink from it. The Babli is a little more explicit and requires “rinsed and dried.” ¹⁴⁰ This homily is given in the Babli in the name of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina; R. Yoḥanan says that he is given boundless property. Both seem to note the incongruence of Naphtali inheriting West and South when in fact his territory was the North-Eastern corner of the Land of Israel. Hence, the allusion cannot be meant to describe his territory but is either a geographic amplification or refers to another world. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:8) אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כּוֹס פָּגוּם אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו. טָעֲמוֹ פָּגְמוֹ. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תְּלָת. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כּוֹס פָּגוּם אֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְהֵא בוֹ כְשֵׁיעוּר. וְטָעֲמוֹ פָּגְמוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Eleazar said: One does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. If one tasted from it, he damaged it. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. And that it must contain a measure. And if one tasted from it, he damaged it¹⁴¹ a quarter *log*) to be valid. In the Babli (*Pesaḥim* 105b/106 a), the derivation is both from the argument given here and from a *baraita* about *Havdalah* after the Sabbath. The parallel argument would have been to derive the necessity of a minimal volume of wine from the next paragraph which implies that if one does not have enough wine for *Qiddush* both Friday night and Sabbath morning one leaves all the wine for the morning. Otherwise, one simply could divide the wine and drink the volume of a liquor glass each time. The order of topics here does not exclude that this also is the Yerushalmi reasoning.. footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Two of the three statements are exactly what Rebbi Eleazar said. The only inference to be drawn from the fact that the cup should not be “damaged” is that it must contain a minimum measure (a reviït, ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:9) אָמַר רִבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר יוּדָן כְּבוֹד הַיּוֹם קוֹדֵם לִכְבוֹד לַיְלָה. קְדוּשַׁת הַלַּיְלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לִקְדּוּשַׁת הַיּוֹם. אֵי זֶהוּ כְּבוֹד הַיּוֹם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם רַב בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said: The honor of the day takes precedence over the honor of the night. The *Qiddush* of the night takes precedence over the *Qiddush* of the day. What is the honor of the day? Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Eleazar bar Joseph¹⁴² in the name of Rav: “He Who created the fruit of the vine.¹⁴³ is in the night. The obligation of honoring the Sabbath is mainly during the day. Hence, if there is only one cup of wine, *Qiddush* of the night should be recited over bread. The *honor* of the day, referred to in the Babli euphemistically as “great *Qiddush*,” consists in reciting the benediction over wine only, without any additions, over a specially dedicated cup of wine. This is reported and endorsed in the Babli (*Pesaḥim* 106a) as the action “of an old man,” confirming a Yerushalmi practice.” footnotes: ¹⁴² An otherwise unknown student of Rav. ¹⁴³ This means that the primary obligation of reciting Qiddush ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:10) רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בַּר חָמוֹי דְּרִבִּי זְרִיקָן הִזְכִּיר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה בָּאָרֶץ וְקִילְּסוּ אוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר בָּא הִזְכִּיר דַּיָין אֱמֶת בְּהַטּוֹב וּמֵטִיב וְקִלְּסוּ אוֹתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Zeriqan, son of the father-in-law of Rebbi Zeriqan, mentioned Ḥanukkah in “the Land” and they praised him¹⁴⁴ in Halakhah 5 that Ḥanukkah should be mentioned. Here, the place of the mention is fixed in the second benediction of Grace. The Babli (*Šabbath* 24a) concurs, but notes that the mention is not obligatory.. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, mentioned “the true Judge¹⁴⁵ 46b) quotes a *baraita* in the name of Rebbi Aqiba which seems to imply that in a house of mourning the benediction “He Who is good” is replaced by “the True Judge”; the Talmud then reinterprets the *baraita* to mean that “the True Judge” is inserted in “He Who is good.” The Yerushalmi here gives a date for the re-interpretation.” in “He Who is good and does good” and they praised him. footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ It was stated in an earlier baraita ¹⁴⁵ The prayer in a house of mourning. The Babli (Berakhot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:11 [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:5:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/7:5:11) רִבִּי בָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא אָכַל מְהַלֵּךְ עוֹמֵד וּמְבָרֵךְ. אָכַל עוֹמֵד יוֹשֵׁב וּמְבָרֵךְ. אָכַל יוֹשֵׁב מֵיסָב וּמְבָרֵךְ. אוֹכֵל מֵיסָב מִתְעַטֵּף וּמְבָרֵךְ. אִם עָשָׂה כֵן הֲרֵי הוּא כְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֶת. מַה טַעְמָא בִּשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה פָנָיו וּבִשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה רַגְלָיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If one eats walking, he stands still for Grace. If one eats standing, he sits down for Grace. If one eats sitting, he reclines¹⁴⁶ but is rejected. There it is declared that one always recites Grace sitting upright. There as here, this is the end of the Chapter; one has to see in the Babli an intentional answer to the Yerushalmi. for Grace. If one eats reclining, he wraps himself in his toga¹⁴⁷ with *tzitzit.* for Grace. If one acts in this fashion, he is like an Angel of Service¹⁴⁸. What is the reason? (*Is.* 6:2) “With two [wings] he would cover his face, and with two [wings] he would cover his feet.” footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ On a couch, as for a formal dinner. The statement, that for Grace one always increases one step in dignity, is reported in the Babli (51b) as a baraita ¹⁴⁷ The tallit ¹⁴⁸ The angels who serve the Divine Presence.