## Tosafot on Berakhot Daf 53a

###### Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:5:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/53a:5:1)

וכי תימא הך איסורא אזל ליה - ה"מ לאקשויי אי הכי נכרי מנכרי נמי אלא עדיפא מיניה פריך דה"מ לשנויי כדמשני בסמוך:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**AND IF YOU SAY THAT THIS PROHIBITED [FLAME] HAS GONE. **The Gemara is searching for the reason that when a Jew lights a candle from a gentile’s candle it is permissible to recite the b’rochoh on that light, but when a gentile lights a candle from another gentile it is prohibited. The Gemara is presently suggesting that when a gentile lights a fire on Shabos and the Jew lights a candle from that fire after Shabos the original flame is no longer here and that is why the Jew may now recite a b’rochoh on the new light that was kindled. The Gemara eventually rejects this line of thinking.
Tosfos wonders why the Gemara even thought that this might be a viable solution to the question. **The Gemara could have asked**on this hypothesis that **if so,**that the original flame is no longer here, then when a **gentile**lights a candle **from a gentile**after Shabos **the same should be true,**that the old forbidden flame is no longer here and the new flame should be permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, **but the Gemara chose to ask a stronger question**from the Braiso that says one is liable for carrying a flame on Shabos, which shows that the old flame is still in existence, otherwise one could not be liable for picking up the old flame and putting down a new flame. **Because the Gemara could have answered**the question that if it is a new flame, it should be permitted to recite a b’rochoh upon it even when a gentile lights from a gentile **as it soon answers**that although it is technically correct that the same should apply to a gentile lighting from a gentile, there is a Rabbinic decree that one might confuse a leniency allowing him to use the light of a second gentile and come to use the light of the first gentile. Since the Gemara, even in its question was aware of this possible answer; it chose to ask a question that could not easily be refuted.


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:7:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/53a:7:1)

גזירה משום נכרי ראשון ונכרי ראשון משום עמוד ראשון וכו' - חדא גזרה היא דגזרו חכמים כל אש נכרי שביד הנכרי דאי לא הא לא קיימא הא אבל נכרי שהדליק מישראל וישראל מנכרי מברכין עליו והכי קיימא לן:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**[THE SAGES ISSUED A] DECREE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST GENTILE, AND THE FIRST GENTILE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST PILLAR [OF FLAME].** There is a general principle that when our Sages legislate decrees that are designed to protect us from violating a prohibition, they do not enact a second decree to protect us from violating the first decree. It seems that in the instance we are discussing here, we have this situation. The initial fear is that one might recite the b’rochoh on the first pillar of light that comes from the gentile’s fire. We therefore say that you cannot recite a b’rochoh on a gentile’s fire at all. That is one decree. We are now extending that to include a second gentile. This seems to be a decree to safeguard us from violating a previous decree.
**This is one decree, which our sages decreed, that any fire that is in the hand of a gentile**cannot be used for the b’rochoh, even though it is somewhat of an expansion of the original fear that one may recite a b’rochoh on the very first pillar of light, the sages sometimes do expand the initial decree to include a second level **because if not for this**second level of the decree that includes any fire in the hand of a gentile **this**first level of the decree, **would not remain**in practice. Our Sages understood that when the decree would be passed on to the regular populace, they would not understand that there is an essential difference between a first gentile and a second gentile. If the fire of a second gentile is permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, they would not understand why the fire of the first gentile is forbidden. They therefore legislated that any fire of a gentile may not be used for the recital of the b’rochoh. All facets of this decree, the first and second gentile’s falls into the context of one decree. Any further legislation to protect one from violating this first expanded decree, for example prohibiting a fire lit by a Jew from a gentile’s fire, would be a decree for a decree, which our Sages did not do.
**However,**upon a fire that **a gentile kindled from a Jew’s**fire **and**upon a fire that **Jew kindled from a gentile’s**fire **we may recite a b’rochoh, and that is how we rule.**Extending the decree beyond a gentile’s fire to include a fire that a Jew lit from a gentile’s fire or vice versa would be a decree to protect us from violating a decree, which our Sages did not do.****


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:20:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/53a:20:1)

הא דאיכא אדם חשוב - אם כן משום כבודו של חשוב ולא לאורה כך פרש"י ור"ח פירש איפכא באדם חשוב לאורה ובדליכא אדם חשוב עשוי לכבוד בית הכנסת:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**WHERE THERE IS AN IMPORTANT PERSON.** Sometimes the light in a synagogue is usable for a b’rochoh and sometimes it is not. The Gemara says that the difference is whether there is an important person in the synagogue or not. We can gather from the context in which this is presented that the flame we are discussing was not really needed for light. Sometimes it was lit for additional light and sometimes in honor of a person. **If so,**that there was an important person in the synagogue then the light was kindled **in honor of the important person and not for light,**and we may not recite a b’rochoh on that light since its purpose is to honor an important person and not for light. **This is Rashi’s explanation. And Rabainu Chananel said the reverse. When there is an important person**it was kindled **for light**and can be used for the b’rochoh **and when there is no important person it was lit for the honor of the synagogue**and cannot be used for a b’rochoh.


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:28:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 53a:28:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/53a:28:1)

אין מברכין עליו - פירש"י מיהו מברכין עליו ברוך שברא שמן ערב והא דאמר לעיל בכיצד מברכין (ברכות ד' מג.) האי משחא כבישא מברכין עליו בורא עצי בשמים היינו בבא להריח ולא מיירי בתוך הסעודה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**ONE MAY NOT RECITE A BLESSING OVER IT.** When one uses perfumed oil in middle of the meal, he does not recite a b’rochoh for benefiting from the fragrance of the wood. But he is benefiting from the oil! **Rashi says that he does however recite the b’rochoh that Hashem created sweet oil. And that which we said earlier in perek Kaitzad M’vorchim (43a): this pressed oil, we recite upon it “He who created fragrant wood”, that is when he intends to smell the fragrance and it is not speaking of when one uses it during the meal** to cleanse one’s hands.