MISHNAH: These are the matters between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel about meals. The House of Shammai say, one pronounces the benediction of the day¹ of Friday night and holidays that has to precede the meal. and then the one over wine. But the House of Hillel say, one pronounces the benediction over wine and aftewards the one of the day.

footnotes: ¹ The Qiddush

HALAKHAH: What² 10:2 (with a slightly better text). The content of this paragraph is paralleled in Babli Berakhot 51b and, in language very close to the Babli, in Tosephta Berakhot5:25. Both Babli and Tosephta add that “practice follows the House of Hillel,” a seemingly unnecessary statement since practice always follows the House of Hillel (except if noted otherwise.) It seems that the Tosephta is very old, from before the times of Rabban Gamliel. The Yerushalmi either suppressed the note that was no longer relevant or quotes another source which never had that statement. is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day³ 20:8): “Remember the Sabbath Day to declare it holy” and this obligation starts immediately at nightfall, whereas the meal is held later for technical reasons. The laws of Qiddush are discussed in Chapter 10 of Pesaḥim and reviewed in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 209–227. before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited⁴ may also be recited over the Sabbath bread but this is not the preferred way, at least not in the Land of Israel where wine was and is abundant.). Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent⁵ 2:3, Šeqalim 8:6, Sukkah 5:6. Taäniot 4:5. The principle is implied by the Yerushalmi here. Both Houses have two reasons for their positions. Wine is more frequent since it is also used during weekdays and it may also be used for Havdalah..

footnotes: ² The entire section is paralleled in Yerushalmi Pesaḥim ³ Since there is a Biblical injunction (Ex. ⁴ The Sanctification cannot be recited without food especially designated for the Sabbath. (However, Qiddush ⁵ The principle of sacral actions is: The more frequent action (or benediction) has precedence. This is spelled out by the Babli here; Yerushalmi sources are: Yoma

Rebbi Yose⁶ said: From the words of both of them⁷ it follows that for wine and Havdalah⁸ starts at the very moment of nightfall., the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does not cause the wine to be served⁹ may be recited over any alcoholic beverage (in the opinion of the Babli, over any beverage, other than water, that is common in the country.) Qiddush may be recited only over wine or possibly the Sabbath bread.; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah,Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does not cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence⁹ may be recited over any alcoholic beverage (in the opinion of the Babli, over any beverage, other than water, that is common in the country.) Qiddush may be recited only over wine or possibly the Sabbath bread..

footnotes: ⁶ He is R. Yasa (Assi), colleague of R. Mana I. ⁷ The Houses of Hillel and Shammai. ⁸ The “separation” between Sabbath and weekdays that has to be recited at the end of Sabbath. The obligation of reciting Havdalah ⁹ Havdalah ⁹ Havdalah

Rebbi Zeïra said: One infers from the words of both of them¹¹ that one may make Havdalah without wine but one may not make Qiddush without wine¹² 106b) allows one to make Qiddush over bread, at least in Babylonia where wine is hard to come by.. That is the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said: One makes Havdalah on alcoholic beverages¹³107a), but the practice there is spelled out that any alcoholic beverage common in a country may be used for Havdalah. Current practice allows even non-alcoholic beverages, except water, as long as they are commonly used (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 296(2)). but one goes from one place¹⁴ recited over wine has precedence. to another to hear Qiddush.

footnotes: ¹¹ Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Mana. ¹² Whereas the Babli (Pesaḥim ¹³ Any alcoholic beverage, including low grade beer. The opinion of the Babli is not clearly stated (Pesaḥim ¹⁴ The physical exertion of the walk may interfere with one’s Sabbath rest but the duty to hear Qiddush

The Great Rebbi Yose said: Over there¹⁵, they have the custom that at a place without wine, the reader stands before the Ark¹⁶ Normally, evening prayers are communal without a reader., recites one benediction that contains seven¹⁷: “(1) Shield of the Patriarch, (2) He Who revives the dead by His command, (3) the Holy God, (4) Who gives rest to His people, (5) before Him we shall serve (6) and give thanks to His name, God of thanksgiving, (7) Master of peace.” Today, the benediction is recited always except the first night of Passover when everybody is required to drink four cups of wine; thus, there is no reason to replace Qiddush by public prayer. In Babylonian sources, the benediction is not mentioned explicitly; in Medieval sources, a different reason is given for the benediction., and closes by “He Who sanctifies Israel and the Sabbath Day¹⁸.”

footnotes: ¹⁵ In Babylonia. ¹⁶ For a formal prayer, a kind of shortened repetition of the ‘Amidah. ¹⁷ The middle portion of the prayer by the reader contains allusions to all seven benedictions of the Sabbath ‘Amidah ¹⁸ This is the Israeli formula. The Babylonian one has only “He Who sanctifies the Sabbath,” probably because the Sabbath is a cosmic day of rest in contrast to holidays that exist only in Jewish history.

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Shammai, how to proceed on Friday evening if someone was sitting and eating on Friday afternoon, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine¹⁹ 1:2) but one may start earlier and continue until nightfall. The Talmud (Babli Pesaḥim100a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 10:1, fol. 37b) reports that R. Yehudah bar Illai requires one to stop before nightfall, but R. Yose bar Ḥalaphta lets him continue, and practice follows R. Yose. It is assumed here that even the House of Shammai will accept the position of R. Yose.? You must say that he reserves the cup until after the recitation of Grace and includes all other benedictions. Obviously, if he would want to pronounce the benediction for the day, Grace has precedence²⁰. If he wants to recite the benediction over wine, the day has precedence²¹. One may infer this from the following (Mishnah 8:9): “If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup.²²” Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink²³. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and he will not forget. How should he proceed according to the House of Shammai? He should recite Grace first, after that he makes Qidddush, and only after that he recites the benediction over the wine.

footnotes: ¹⁹ One returns to the discussion of the Mishnah. One may not start a meal Friday afternoon close to the Sabbath (Mishnah Shabbat ²⁰ Even if one continues, the Sabbath meal must be separate since eating on Sabbath is a religious obligation. Hence, Grace must be said for the preceding meal and, if one has wine, it must be recited over a cup of wine. ²¹ According to the House of Shammai. ²² In that situation, the House of Shammai say that one starts Grace with the benediction over wine while the House of Hillel require the benediction for wine after Grace. It would seem that in our situation also, the wine could come before Qiddush. ²³ He might inadvertently drink from the wine after Grace without a benediction. This is a special situation and the House of Shammai will not agree to apply that Mishnah to it.

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Hillel, how may one proceed at the end of the Sabbath if someone was sitting and eating on Sabbath, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You say, he reserves it²⁴ until after the meal and connects everything to it. What can you say? Shall he recite the benediction for the wine, Grace has precedence. Shall he recite Grace, the light has precedence²⁵ but with it a benediction for man-made fire (that was forbidden on the Sabbath and now can be kindled anew) and spices (to make up for the loss of the intensified pleasure one derives from the Sabbath that now is being lost.) The invention of man-made fire is traditionally attributed to Adam at the end of his first Sabbath, see Halakhah 6. The problem here is that one must make the benediction for the light as soon as one profits from newly lit fire.. Shall he recite for the light, Havdalah has precedence. We may infer from the following²⁶ 5:30, Babli Berakhot 52a. In both of these sources, the House of Shammai is reported to require light before spices and the House of Hillel spices before light. R. Arieh Leib Yellin in his Yephe Enayim points out that the text of the Yerushalmi is consistent with all the inferences drawn here and in Halakhah 5. Hence, there is a genuine difference in tradition between Galilee and Babylonia.: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel do not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah²⁷: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light. What should he do following the opinion of the House of Hillel? He should say Grace first, afterwards he should recite the benediction over wine and afterwards Havdalah.

footnotes: ²⁴ The cup of wine that should follow Grace and precede Havdalah. ²⁵ After the end of the Sabbath, one has to recite not only Havdalah ²⁶ Tosephta Berakhot ²⁷ Two Babylonians, one an authority in Galilee, the other in Babylonia. They are responsible for enforcing uniformity in Jewish custom in both countries.

A holiday that starts at the end of Sabbath. Rebbi Yoḥanan said YQNH, wine, Qiddush, light, Havdalah. Ḥanan bar Abba said in the name of Rav: Wine, Qiddush, light, Havdalah, sukkah, time³⁰101b).. Rebbi Ḥanina said, NHYQ³¹ wine, Qiddush. In the Babli (Pesaḥim 102a), this order is attributed to R. Joshua, the early highest authority who is given his full name, R. Joshua ben Ḥananiah. It is possible that this led to the substitution of “R. Joshua ben Levi” for “Samuel” in the following parable. However, Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meïr), in his commentary to Babli Pesaḥim, quotes R. Ḥanina as requiring YNHQ, wine, light, Havdalah, Qiddush. But this is the undisputed order of Levi here who is described as taking a middle road between R. Ḥanina and R. Yoḥanan. The Venice print of the Yerushalmi has the impossible reading YNHYQ which is a confluence of the codes attributed to R. Ḥanina in the Babli and the Yerushalmi.. Samuel follows the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina since Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi³²: A king³³ for the holiday. Since holidays also give one spiritual ease, spices are not added at the end of a Sabbath that is the start of a holiday. leaves and a prefect comes. One accompanies the king and only afterwards does one receive the prefect. Levi said YNHQ³⁴; first the full Havdalah and then an appended Qiddush. In the Babli (Pesaḥim102a), Levi is reported as requiring QNYH, in opposition to everybody mentioned here.. It seems that Levi says it both ways³⁵ before Qiddush following R. Ḥanina.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yose³⁶: What does one do in practice? He said to him: one follows Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan. And so it became the practice following Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan.

footnotes: ³⁰ He agrees with Rebbi Yoḥanan but includes all possibilities that may be appropriate for a holiday. The benediction for time is: “He Who let us live, kept us, and let us reach this time.” This benediction is not recited on the last day of Passover. Hence, Rebbi Yoḥanan gives the minimal formula as pointed out in the Babli (Pesaḥim ³¹ Light, Havdalah, ³² Rashbam quotes “in the name of Samuel”. In the Babli, as mentioned earlier, this parable is from “R. Ḥanina illustrating the words of R. Joshua ben Ḥananiah.” ³³ The king is the Sabbath and the subordinate prefect is the holiday; the Sabbath has to be mentioned first, including the light that belongs to the ceremony of Sabbath end, before making Qiddush ³⁴ Wine, light, Havdalah, Qiddush ³⁵ He puts wine first following R. Yoḥanan and Havdalah ³⁶ R. Yasa (Assi) elsewhere. The Babylonian R. Zeïra inquired from the Tiberian R. Assi whether the practice in Galilee was identical with the Babylonian.

When Rebbi Abbahu went to the South³⁷, he followed Rebbi Ḥanina. When he descended³⁸ to Tiberias, he followed Rebbi Yoḥanan in order not to disagree with anybody in his home town.

footnotes: ³⁷ The region of Lod, the only remaining Jewish settlement in Judea and the Southern plain. R. Abbahu lived in Caesarea and personally followed the rule of R. Ḥanina who always speaks in the name of the authority of Rebbi. ³⁸ Tiberias is below sea level. From Caesarea Philippi (Banias) one has to descend, from Caesarea Maritima via Bet Sheän one would ascend.

The opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina is understandable. It is difficult to understand Rebbi Yoḥanan: Does one not pronounce the benediction over the light at all other days that one should extinguish it⁴⁰ The light for Havdalah is preferably a torch, but the light for a meal is from a lamp.? And here, he makes the benediction over the light so that he should not extinguish it⁴¹ and should precede Qiddush irrespective of the order of Qiddush and Havdalah. [In current practice, the wife lights the candles first with her own benediction and the husband then recites his benediction (after Qiddush) over the same lights. That does not seem to be reasonable. It may be assumed that R. Ḥanina requires either husband or wife to recite the first benediction over light.]. How does Rebbi Yoḥanan handle this? Since he has wine⁴², his light will not go out. Then he might say the benediction over the light at the end⁴³. In order not to disturb its timing from other Sabbaths⁴⁴ as a matter of course..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Since the light is for celebration only; it is extinguished after Havdalah. ⁴¹ On a holiday, one may light a fire (from an existing one) but one may not extinguish it. Hence, the light in our case is a light for the meal, not for Havdalah, ⁴² For a full meal for which the light is needed. ⁴³ When the light is really needed for the food. ⁴⁴ To keep the order wine - (spices) - light - Havdalah

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one washes his hands and after that he mixes the cup, but the House of Hillel say that one mixes the cup first and then he washes his hands⁴⁵ cup. Qiddush is followed by a meal with bread for which one must wash his hands. The details and reasons are spelled out in the Halakhah. This disagreement has nothing to do with the question whether one washes his hands before (following R. Moses Isserls) or after (following R. Joseph Caro) Qiddush; in both cases, the cup is filled before one washes his hands..

footnotes: ⁴⁵ The cup here is the Qiddush

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The fluids on the back of the cup should not become impure from his hands and in their turn defile the cup⁴⁶ A Biblical source of impurity is called אב הטוּמאה “father of impurity”. The only possible objects of impurity are humans, vessels, and food. Any object that becomes impure secondarily, usually by contact, is “first in impurity.” For profane objects, the two stages are the only ones. However, by rabbinic tradition there exists a “second in impurity” for profane and “third, fourth” for certain holy objects. The general principle is that any transmitted impurity decreases by one degree. There is one important exception. Since body fluids of a person with gonorrhea are “fathers of impurity”, it was decreed that any impurity involving fluids is at least “first in impurity.” Also, unwashed hands are always assumed to be “second in impurity.” If one touches a dry cup with unwashed hands, nothing happens. But if there should be drops of wine on the outside of the cup, these drops will become “first in impurity” and defile the contents of the cup. It is the characteristic of Rabbinic (pharisaic) Judaism that one tries to eat one’s profane meals in a way reasonably consistent with rules of ritual purity. It seems that the House of Shammai assumes that a “full cup” required for Qiddush is full to the rim, kept together only by surface tension, and, hence, it is unlikely that the back of the cup will be dry. (For pottery vessels, other rules apply.) The text of the explanation is from the Tosephta (Berakhot 5:26)..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The Biblical principles on ritual impurity are spelled out in the book of Leviticus.

What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The back of the cup is always impure⁴⁷. Another explanation: Washing of the hands should be as close as possible to the benediction⁴⁸ (R. Moshe Isserls). Here also both explanations are from the Tosephta (loc. cit.).

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The back of the cup is impure (“second in impurity”) by Rabbinic decree, as explained in the next paragraph. If one washes his hands first and does not dry them very thorougly, then the hands will become “first in impurity” by holding the cup, as explained in the previous note, and one is worse off than with unwashed hands. (This is also the explanation of the Babli, 52a.) The House of Hillel assume that a “full cup” is one filled close to the rim but leaving a reasonable safety margin as hedge against a spill. ⁴⁸ It is not clear whether the benediction in question is that over bread (R. Joseph Caro) or the wine for Qiddush

Rebbi Vivan⁴⁹ in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It turns out that the House of Shammai is consistent with Rebbi Yose and the House of Hillel with Rebbi Meïr⁵⁰, since we have stated there (Mishnah Kelim 25:7)⁵¹3:9–10: “R. Meïr said: How is it for impure hands? If one’s hands are impure, the outside of the cup is pure; if it has moist spots then he may hold the cup by its rim without worry. R. Yose said: How is it for pure hands? If his hands were pure and moist, but the outside of the cup impure, then he may hold the cup at the rim without worrying that the moisture of his hand should become impure from the outside and then defile his hand.” It follows that for R. Yose, the hands have to be pure (i. e., washed) and for R. Meïr they may be impure.: “Rebbi Meïr said, for impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.”

footnotes: ⁴⁹ A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of all the great Amoraïm of R. Joḥanan’s generation. His name probably was Vivianus. In other quotes, his name is shortened to Bibi, Vivi. ⁵⁰ This is paradoxical since practice follows the House of Hillel and Rebbi Yose. The Babli (52a/b) explains otherwise, that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on whether one may use a cup which is impure outside at all if one cares about consuming food in purity. ⁵¹ Chapter 25 starts: “All vessels have an inside and an outside.” For earthenware vessels, it is a decree of the Torah that they become impure only if an impure “father of impurity” is found in the volume enclosed by the vessel (even without touching the walls,) never from the outside (even if the “father of impurity” touches the wall.) From this is derived a Rabbinic decree that also all other vessels, e. g. metal vessels that become impure from a biblical “father of impurity” by simple touch, cannot become impure inside if a Rabbinic impurity touches from the outside (but not vice versa.) Mishnah 7 then reads: “All vessels have an outside, an inside, and a rim. Rebbi Tarphon said, [one speaks of] a large wooden trough, Rebbi Aqiba said, of cups. Rebbi Meïr said for impure and pure hands, R. Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.” Since inside and outside have been discussed before, the opinions of Rabbis Meïr and Yose, students of R. Aqiba, deal with the rim, the part of the outside of the cup that is slightly bent outward or otherwise distinguished as place for the lips when one drinks from the cup. The explanation of the Mishnah is given in Tosephta Kelim Baba bathra

Rebbi Yose⁵² in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai⁵³ and Rebbi Ḥiyya⁵⁴ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah⁵⁵ is the gift for the Cohen from newly kneaded dough. It has the status of holiness of Terumah; hence, it has to be separated from the dough in purity which, in all cases, means also that in the Land of Israel one has to wash his hands before taking it. (All other countries are impure anyhow and their ḥallah must be burned.) and for washing one’s hands⁵⁶, he has to walk⁵⁷ then the Babli declares in the name of the Galilean sages that one should clean his hands with sand or any other cleaning material. up to four mil. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁵² He is R. Yasa (Assi). ⁵³ An Israeli Amora of the first generation, student of Ḥizqiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya. ⁵⁴ He is Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. ⁵⁵ Ḥallah ⁵⁶ For any action for which the washing of one’s hands is required. ⁵⁷ If no water is available one has to wait, e. g., to eat bread, until he has washed his hands. If the distance to water is greater than 4 mil ⁵⁸ The Babli (15a) has a different rule, that one has to return if the distance required is less than one mil.

How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them⁵⁹ in search of water or may they clean their hands with sand or other cleansers?? Let us hear it from this (Mishnah Ḥallah 2:3): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah⁶⁰ needs a benediction, it may not be done if one’s genitals are visible. A woman may hide her genitals by sitting down but a man cannot do that. because she can cover herself, but a man may not.” Is that woman not sitting inside her house⁶¹ and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him⁶².

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Do they have to go up to four mil ⁶⁰ Since the separation of ḥallah ⁶¹ And, presumably, has some clothes there that she could put on. The entire argument is possible only for the Yerushalmi which does not require any retracing of one’s steps at all in the search for water; it is impossible for the Babli which requires retracing one’s steps, if only for a reduced distance. ⁶² One does not bother him at all and if there is no water at his place, he need not leave it in his search for water.

It has been stated⁶³ 5:13. Since the Mishnah introduces laws of washing one’s hands, the details are discussed from here on.: “Water before the meal is conditional⁶⁴ 5 (5694), pp. 97–110]. The same language is found in the Tosephta, in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, and in other Galilean Midrashim. The Tanḥuma explains the expression “conditional” for something that is required, by “it is optional in the sense that if one decides not to eat bread with his meal, he does not have to wash his hands.”, after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts⁶⁵2:1–3 that rules, if one washed his hands with less than a revi‘it of water for each hand then he has to wash each hand twice. However, in that case it is not true that one may interrupt the washing because if he does not keep his mind concentrated on watching his hands they become impure again. As S. Lieberman points out, one might follow the interpretation of R. Isaiah I of Trani (Pisqe RYD on Berakhot 52a) that the Yerushalmi here stays with the previous topic of Qiddush and speaks of washing one’s hands twice, once for Qiddush for cleanliness and after that for food for ritual purity. This agrees with Tosephta Berakhot 4:8, which requires the washing of one hand for the wine drunk as appetizer before a formal dinner.; for the second he takes and may not interrupt⁶⁶.” What is: “He takes and interrupts”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes⁶⁷ and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac said⁶⁸ it reads: “Rebbi Jacob bar Isaac asked: …” This language is somewhat easier but the reading R. Samuel bar Isaac is better; since it refers to an Amora also otherwise known, there is no reason to cross out the word “said” here. In the Rome ms., the reading is: רבי שמואל בר יצחק את מימר דבעי ואת אמרת רשות “R. Samuel bar Isaac: You say that it is needed and you say that it is conditional?”, I asked: “He takes and interrupts⁶⁹” and you say it is conditional?

footnotes: ⁶³ The language is close to Tosephta Berakhot ⁶⁴ In the language of the Babli, רשות means “permitted.” However, in the language of the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi, i. e., the language of the Land of Israel, רשות means “a minor obligation” as shown by S. Lieberman [תיקוני ירושלמי, Tarbiẓ ⁶⁵ Most commentators explain this expression from the Mishnah Yadayim ⁶⁶ Washing one’s hands after the meal is not a ritual requirement. Since spoons and forks were not used, the hands were dirty by necessity. Washing one’s hands after any meal involving sauces was a necessity for cleanliness (in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, later in this Halakhah) or for health reasons (in the opinion of the Babli). In any case, since no ritual impurity is involved, there is no required minimum volume of water and one does not have to repeat the washing. ⁶⁷ Takes water and pours it over his hands. ⁶⁸ In the parallel in Ḥallah ⁶⁹ In peremptory language.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first⁷⁰ 106a, the opinion of “some say” is ascribed there to Ravin (Rebbi Abin). The full story is in Tanḥuma Buber Balaq 24 [quoted also in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, Bemidbar rabba Balaq 2(20)]: In a time of persecution, when one could not show one’s Jewishness openly, a shopkeeper had both kosher and non-kosher food prepared. Since he could not ask his customers whether they were Jewish, he gave the kosher food to people who washed before eating bread and pig’s meat to customers who did not wash. When a man came in who did not wash his hands, he was taken for a Gentile and served non-kosher food. [For halakhic consequences of this story, see Šulḥan ‘Arukh Yore Deä 178, Note #4 of Śifte Cohen.], pork was eaten. Because of the second⁷¹ 83b of a man who unlawfully kept a money-pouch that was deposited with him. He did not wash his hands, so the victimized person saw that he had eaten peas, went to the wife of the thief and told her that her husband wanted her to give him the pouch and as sign of recognition he told him to tell her that their last meal was peas. The wife then gave him back the money pouch. When the husband came back, he was so incensed that he killed his wife. It seems that the Yerushalmi has a first version in which the husband simply divorced his wife and in the second version he killed his wife, the intended victim, and himself. In the Yerushalmi source, Tanḥuma Buber, quoted above, the husband was not a thief, but he was the victim of a man who tricked the wife out of a precious ring by the identification of the food of his last meal., a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ The water used for washing one’s hands before the meal. The text is given in the name of Rav Dimi in Babli Ḥulin ⁷¹ The washing of one’s hands after the meal. The story is told in Babli Yoma

Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that⁷³ to the next water source. The parallel in the Babli is Ḥulin 107a.? He answered him, I am asthenic⁷⁴. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth⁷⁵. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana⁷⁶ 107a/b), the name is Rav Taḥlifa bar Abime, a known student of Samuel. came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food⁷⁷,” he must wash his hands. While this washing is taken from the discipline of terumah, one opinion allows Cohanim to eat terumah without washing but wearing gloves since a Cohen knows that eating impure terumah is a deadly sin, so he will avoid any contact between his hands and the food. But for profane food where washing is simply a matter of discipline (although taken from the rules of terumah,) it cannot be circumvented, cf. Babli Ḥullin 106a., not for terumah. Rebbi Yose⁷⁸ says, for terumah and for profane food.

footnotes: ⁷³ He thought that Rav did not wash his hands and used the cloth, which cannot become impure from one’s hands, to eat bread without incurring an obligation to wash. Samuel wondered, since that subterfuge is permitted only for people who would have to walk more than four mil ⁷⁴ I washed my hands but am unable to eat without gloves. ⁷⁵ Without washing their hands. ⁷⁶ In the Rome manuscript, the name is R. Yose bar Huna Cahana. Neither of these names appears a second time; it is impossible to decide between the readings. In the Babli (Ḥullin ⁷⁷ If someone wants to eat profane food “in the discipline of terumah ⁷⁸ He seems to be the Tanna R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta.)

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Jonah, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Handwashing for terumah is to the wrist but for profane food it is to the finger joints. Maisha, the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If someone wanted to eat with my grandfather and he did not rinse his hands to the wrist, he would not eat with him⁷⁹106a/b. Since R. Joshua ben Levi is a higher authority than Rav, practice in both Talmudim requires washing to the wrist also for profane food. The identification of פרק as wrist and קשרי אצבעות as the joint of fingers to the hand follows Raviah (R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi), not Rashi and Tosaphot in their commentaries on the Babli..

footnotes: ⁷⁹ The parallel is in Babli Ḥullin

Rav Huna said: Handwashing is only for bread. Rebbi Hoshaya stated: For anything getting dirty by a fluid⁸⁰ 115a to explain why at the Seder ceremony one has to wash his hands before touching the vegetable that is to be dipped in fluid. For any sacred food like terumah or the Passover sacrifice, it is obvious that one has to wash his hands before touching fluids since the secondary impurity of hands causes primary impurity for the fluid. Hence, for the Seder it is only a question whether one should pronounce a benediction, as in the times of the Temple, or whether one washes his hands as a remembrance of Temple times. Here, the question is posed for everyday food, since handwashing for profane food comes from the “discipline of terumah.” Rav is of the opinion that the Rabbinic institution of handwashing applies only to bread whereas Rebbi Hoshaya requires handwashing for profane food in all situations where it would be required for terumah. In Antiquity, in the absence of spoons most foods in sauce were scooped up with pitta bread. Hence, the real difference between Rav and R. Hoshaya was in food handling as explained by R. Zeïra.. Rebbi Zeïra said: Even when cutting lupines⁸¹, he used to wash his hands.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ This is also reported in Babli Pesaḥim ⁸¹ They do not contain much sap.

Rav⁸² 106b/107a), Rav is quoted as requiring an explicit declaration to make the washing of the hands valid for the entire day and Rebbi Avina seems to restrict this to desert-like conditions where water is not easily found. The latter interpretation is then rejected by the Talmud. In the Yerushalmi it seems that Rav is reported to require only one washing per day and Rebbi Avina restricts it to people like donkey drivers who cannot easily find water. Since he is the Israeli authority, it may be presumed that the Yerushalmi prefers the interpretation that is rejected in the Babli. said: If one washed his hands in the morning, one does not bother him in the evening. Rebbi Avina commanded the donkey drivers: If you find water to wash, wash your hands and condition them for the entire day.

footnotes: ⁸² In the Babli (Ḥullin

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes⁸³ 46a. There, the Babli adds that practice follows R. Joḥanan (in the name of R. Simeon bar Yoḥai) who declares that the head of the household should recite the benediction for the bread since he is the host but that the guest should recite Grace and add to it a public blessing for the host. Even though the two authors quoted are Israeli, it follows from the Yerushalmi here that the public blessing for the host was never accepted practice in Galilee.. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated⁸⁴ 5:6 and a different one in Babli Berakhot 46b. It seems that the three texts represent three different traditions.: “The order of washing of the hands⁹⁵ 4:11: “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure.. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one⁸⁶. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one⁸⁷ 105a/b) quotes a baraita that declares washing of hands in the middle of the meal (between courses) to be voluntary; the exact halakhic meaning of this statement is in doubt.. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace⁸⁸? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.

footnotes: ⁸³ The parallel to this story is in the Babli, Berakhot ⁸⁴ A similar formulation is in Tosephta Berakhot ⁹⁵ Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁸⁶ Since one cannot ask the V.I.P. to wait a long time between washing and breaking the bread. Once the hands are washed, one may not let his attention be diverted from them, otherwise he has to wash again. ⁸⁷ In the Tosephta, this sentence does not refer to washing one’s hands at all, but to pouring wine. The Babli (Ḥullin ⁸⁸ The Babli (46b) brings a story that Rebbi asked Rav to wash his hands first, meaning that he should recite Grace aloud for the entire company. It follows that Rebbi emphatically denies the rule of Rav Huna that, as noted earlier, was never accepted in Babylonia.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one dries his hands⁹² with a towel and puts the latter on the table; the House of Hillel say, on the pillow.

footnotes: ⁹² After washing one’s hands for the meal.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah deals with a table of marble or one of parts screwed together that cannot become impure⁹³ 1:10) even states that a wooden table that contains a frame into which a marble table top is put cannot become impure since wooden implements become impure only if they enclose a volume and in this case the frame is filled with material that cannot become impure. The table whose legs are screwed in and can be unscrewed without tools is covered by the Tosephta (loc. cit. 1:11): “Restaurant chairs, even those having holes, that have their legs screwed in are permanently pure; if legs are fixed with a nail then they may become impure.” The parallel in the Babli (52b) states that the House of Shammai will forbid the use of a table that is ritually unclean; both Babli and Tosephta (5:27) note that the House of Hillel will never allow one to put the towel on the table because the fluid on the towel might touch the food and render it impure in the second degree (and by eating from it an amount greater than the volume of two eggs one’s body becomes impure in the second degree, Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:2). The arguments of the Babli are incompatible with those of the Yerushalmi.. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? That the fluids on the towel should not become impure from the pillow⁹⁴ and in turn defile his hands.

footnotes: ⁹³ The House of Shammai can prefer the table over the pillow only if the table cannot become impure and, hence, not impart any impurity to the fluids on the towel. No vessel made of stone can become impure; that includes marble tables. The Tosephta (Kelim Bava bathra ⁹⁴ Since fluids in contact with primary or secondary impurity become a primary source of impurity and, while a human can become impure only from a “father of impurity”, his hands become secondarily impure from contact with primary impurity. The arrangement would be more logical if the order of these two sentences were inverted.

What is the reason of the House of Hillel? In case of doubt, fluids and hands are considered pure⁹⁵ 4:11: “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure.. Another explanation: “Hands” are not for profane food⁹⁶” Hence, there is no reason to follow strict rules in case of doubt since it is a principle that doubts regarding Rabbinic institutions must be resolved leniently..

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁹⁶ The entire institution of secondary impurity for hands has no Biblical basis for profane food; it has been instituted following “the discipline of terumah.

Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food⁹⁷? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated⁹⁸ 1:6 in the reading of Rabbenu Simson of Sens. In the printed editions and the Vienna manuscript, the reading is “hands are of primary impurity for sacrifices.” That reading is rejected by R. David Pardo in his commentary on the Tosephta. The statement is quoted several times in the Yerushalmi and also in Babli Ḥulin 33b. The interpretation here is that profane food can become impure only from the source of impurity or primary impurity. Hence, unwashed hands must be of primary impurity in order to influence profane food. In contrast, terumah becomes unusable if it was in contact with secondary impurity; hence, primary impurity causes the same result for profane food as secondary impurity for terumah. This seems to be the opinion of Maimonides (הלכוֹת אבוֹת הטוּמאה יא׃טו), who often is influenced by the Yerushalmi, also in Ḥulin; it is incompatible with Rashi’s interpretation of the text in Ḥulin. There it is stated that hands can become primarily impure only if held into the windows of a house afflicted with leprosy. That would not make a good reason for the House of Shammai.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah.” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there⁹⁹ 2:8, quoted in Babli Ḥagigah 20a, Ḥulin 35b. Profane food can receive only primary impurity. Terumah can receive both primary and secondary impurity; the third stage is called “unusable” since it cannot be eaten, but it does not transmit the impurity further. Sacrifices become impure also in a tertiary way; only the fourth stage is “unusable.”: “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Given the explanation of the House of Hillel, they seem to presuppose that the secondary impurity of hands has a Biblical root. This is incredible. ⁹⁸ Tosephta Tahorot ⁹⁹ Mishnah Ṭahorot

There (Mishnah Idiut 4:6) we have stated: “Someone who rubbed himself with pure oil, then he became impure, he descended¹⁰¹ for purification. and immersed himself. The House of Shammai say, he is pure even if it¹⁰² drips, but the House of Hillel say impure¹⁰³ cannot touch his skin where it is covered by oil.. But if the oil was impure to start out with, the House of Shammai say, up to the anointing of a small limb¹⁰⁴ 8:1, Babli Šabbat 77a) agree that “a small limb” is a small limb of a newborn. This is the maximum amount that can become pure by immersion of one’s body.; but the House of Hillel say, moist fluid¹⁰⁵. Rebbi Yehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel, moist and making moist.” The opinions of the House of Hillel are reversed! There they say “impure” and here they say “pure.” There it is visible, here it is absorbed in the towel.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ He descended into the miqweh ¹⁰² The oil was not washed off but is still on his body. Since his body is pure, so is the rubbing oil which became part of his body. ¹⁰³ It seems that they declare only the oil to remain impure, but one can also make the argument that the person remains impure since the water of the miqweh ¹⁰⁴ Both Talmudim (Yerushalmi Šabbat ¹⁰⁵ It feels moist but does not transfer moisture to anything that touches it.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one sweeps the house and after that one washes his hands⁸⁹. But the House of Hillel say, one washes his hands and after that he sweeps the house.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ One sweeps the house if he ate sitting on the floor, or the table if he ate reclining on a couch. The washing of hands here is that after the meal; the problem of the House of Shammai is that spilled water from washing may spoil bits of food still lying around. The rule of the House of Hillel is optional; that of the House of Shammai is obligatory.

HALAKHAH: What⁹⁰ is the reason of the House of Shammai? Because of loss of food. But what is the reason of the House of Hillel? If the waiter is intelligent he removes the leftovers, even less than the volume of an olive; then one may wash his hands and after that sweep the house⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The Babli (52b) and the Tosephta (5:28) speak only about morsels the size of an olive. The Tosephta also includes the reason given here for the House of Shammai in its text. ⁹¹ The Babli and the Tosephta are unanimous that morsels smaller than the size of an olive may be deliberately spoiled; only larger morsels count as food and fall under the Biblical prohibition to destroy usable things. A second difference between Yerushalmi and Babli is that the Yerushalmi permits washing first if the waiter is intelligent; in Babli and Tosephta it is required that the waiter be learned.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say: Light, Grace, spices and Havdalah¹⁰⁶ is required in addition to Grace.. But the House of Hillel say, Light, spices, Grace, and Havdalah. The House of Shammai say: “He Who created illumination by fire.” But the House of Hillel say, “He Who is creating illuminations by fire.¹¹⁵ 54a) is called “divine inspiration.””

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Order of benedictions if the Sabbath meal extended until after nightfall when Havdalah ¹¹⁵ There are two differences between the formulas of the two Houses for the benediction over the light at the end of Sabbath. For the House of Shammai, the creation is complete and in the past. For the House of Hillel, creation is a continuous process and comprises many kinds of light, including light created by human engineering that in the Babli (Pesaḥim

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel did not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Yehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ The entire paragraph was discussed in Halakha 1, fol. 11d.

The¹⁰⁸ 5:29, Babli 43b. The text of the Tosephta manuscripts is close to the Yerushalmi. In the Babli and the traditional printed text of the Tosephta, the rôles of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel are reversed. The Babli starts: “When they brought to them oil and wine …” meaning that it was brought in the middle of the dinner for enjoyment. This is the opinion of R. Abraham ben David. According to Maimonides (Berakhot 7:14), wine and spiced oil were brought after dinner, to recite Grace over them. According to Rashi, this wine was brought after Grace had already been recited. House of Shammai say, the cup in his right hand and perfumed oil¹⁰⁹ in his left hand; first he says the benediction over the cup and then over the perfumed oil. The House of Hillel say, perfumed oil in his right hand and the cup in his left hand, he recites the benediction over the perfumed oil and rubs it on the head of the waiter¹¹⁰. But if the waiter was learned, he would rub it on the wall because it does no credit¹¹¹ to the learned to walk around perfumed.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Tosephta Berakhot ¹⁰⁹ As an air freshener. ¹¹⁰ To have some use for it since he must get rid of the perfumed oil in order not to walk around perfumed. ¹¹¹ The Babli is more explicit and calls it “a shame.”

Abba¹¹² 1089(8); there the names are Rebbi Abba and Rav Ḥuna. This is more reasonable, but there the names do not fit either since it says that Rav Huna insulted Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Abba told him to get up and serve. This is totally impossible since both Rebbis Abba and Zeïra were students of Rav Huna. On the other hand, the reading אבוי “his father” is impossible in the Yerushalmi since R. Abba bar bar Ḥana’s full name was R. Abba bar R. Abba bar Ḥana, which shows that he was a posthumous child and his father could not get angry with him. The most reasonable scenario is that R. Abba insulted the much younger R. Zeïra and R. Huna ordered them to switch places; but this has no manuscript evidence. bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand¹¹³. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny¹¹⁴ the particular larceny committed in using Temple property for profane ends (Lev. 5:14–16).. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

footnotes: ¹¹² There is a parallel to this story in Yalquṭ Šim‘oni Ezra ¹¹³ It seems that Rebbi Zeïra knew the diverging traditions about the sayings of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai in this matter, as explained in the preceding paragraph, and, therefore, decided to circumvent all problems (since practice has to follow the House of Hillel) by carrying both wine and perfumed oil in one hand. ¹¹⁴ Meïlah,

According to the opinion of the House of Shammai, should one not say: “He Who created the fruit of the vine?” According to the opinion of the House of Hillel, one should say: “Creator of the fruit of the vine.”¹¹⁶ Wine is new¹¹⁷ every year; fire is not different every hour.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ There is no source that would even hint at the proposed formula of the House of Shammai. Hence, the House of Shammai will not insist on using the past in the benediction for wine. ¹¹⁷ With a different taste. Hence, the past would be inappropriate here.

Fire and hybrids were not created in the six days of Creation but they were in the Divine plan of the six days of Creation¹¹⁸ 5:31, as reason for the benediction over fire as will be explained later. In the Tosephta, R. Yose disagrees and says the fire of hell was created on the Second Day; in the opinion of the Babli (Pesaḥim 54a) hell and its fire precede the Creation. The Yerushalmi takes no position on this. The text of this and the following two sections are also in Bereshit rabba 82(17); there is a parallel in Babli Pesaḥim 54a. As is normal in the Talmudim, a proposition of subjects A B is discussed in order B A.. Hybrids (*Gen.*36:24): “These are the sons of Ẓiv‘on, Ayyah and Anah. He is the Anah who invented the yemim in the prairie.” What is yemim? Rebbi Yehudah¹¹⁹ ben Simon said ἡμίονος (“Half she-ass, mule”) and the rabbis say ἥμισυς (“half”), half horse and half donkey. These¹²⁰ 8:3. The reading “R. Jonah” is from the Venice print in Kil’aim, the Rome manuscript here, and Bereshit rabba. There is no Amora who is called Rebbi Jehudah (reading of the Venice print and Leyden ms.) without mention of his father’s name. In the Babli (Ḥullin79a), the criterion is ascribed to Rav Papa, fifth generation Babylonian Amora. are its signs: Rebbi Jonah says, if it has small ears, its mother is a horse and its father a donkey. If they are large, its mother is a donkey and its father a horse. Rebbi Mana ordered those of the patriarch’s estate: If you want to buy a mule¹²¹,i, m. “mule”., you should buy one with small ears whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Tosephta Berakhot ¹¹⁹ Son of Rebbi Simon, an Amora of the third/fourth generation in Galilee, known as preacher. ¹²⁰ This and the following sentence are redundant. The sentences are copied here from Kil’aim ¹²¹ Latin mulus

What did¹²² has only "Anah" and is in the singular throughout, but here it starts with two persons but then in the middle of God's speech switches from plural to singular. One has to assume that there were two texts, one dealing only with Anah and the other with Ziv'on and Anah and that our text here is a confluence of both of them. Ẓiv‘on and Anah do? He prepared a female donkey and mated her with a male horse; a mule came out from them. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them: You brought into the world a harmful thing, I shall bring over that man something that will harm him. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He prepared a snake and mated her with a Ḥardaun¹²³; a brightly colored snake¹²⁴ came out of them. Nobody will ever tell you that he was bitten by a brightly colored snake and survived, bitten by a rabid dog and survived, hit by a mule and survived (but only by a white female mule¹²⁵ 7b) adds that the only mule that kills with its hoof is a white one even whose hoofs are white..)

footnotes: ¹²² The text here is difficult. The parallel in Bereshit rabba ¹²³ Arabic name of a large kind of lizard. ¹²⁴ Arabic حب “embellish, decorate”. ¹²⁵ The Babli (Ḥulin

R. Levi in the name of Bar Nazira¹²⁶: Thirty-six hours did Man enjoy the light that was created on the First Day of Creation¹²⁷ 12a). Psalm 139 is ascribed to David in the Book of Psalms, but in all of talmudic literature it is taken to describe the experiences of Adam., twelve on Friday, twelve in the night of Sabbath, and twelve during the day of Sabbath; in this light Adam saw from one end of the world to the other. In this unending light, the entire Creation started singing God’s praise as it is said (Job 37:2), “All under the heavens sing to Him, His light is on the corners of the world.” When the Sabbath ended, darkness came. Adam was afraid that this was what was said (Gen. 3:15): “You will crush its head and it will crush your heel;” certainly it will crush me, so he said (*Ps.*139:11), “But the darkness will crush me.” R. Levi said: At this moment the Holy One, praised be He, let him find two flintstones that he knocked against each other¹²⁸ 54a), the discovery of man-made fire is called “a heavenly inspiration.” and made fire; that is what is said (Ps. 139:11), “Now the night is light for me,” and he praised the Creator of the illuminating fire. Samuel says: Therefore we give praise for the [man-made] fire at the end of Sabbath because that was the time of its first production.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Name from the parallel in the Midrash. The text here has ר׳ בזירה, an otherwise unknown person. ¹²⁷ The vanished light of the Creation is reserved for the just in the future world (Babli Ḥagigah ¹²⁸ In the Babli (Pesaḥim

Rav Huna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the end of Yom Kippur one also recites the benediction since the light had rested all that day long¹³⁰), one does not recite the benediction over newly lit fire..

footnotes: ¹³⁰ But, as noted in the Babli (loc. cit.

MISHNAH: One does not recite a benediction¹³¹ over a lamp and spices of Gentiles, or over lamp and spices for the dead¹³², or over lamp and spices set before an idol. Also, one does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless he has profited from its light.

footnotes: ¹³¹ For Havdalah. ¹³² Light and perfumes set before a casket.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob stated¹³⁴ before Rebbi Jeremiah: One recites a benediction over spices of Gentiles. How can he disagree? Uphold it for someone who burns spices in front of his store¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ Not that he formulated it, but he quoted the tannaïtic formulation in the Yeshivah of R. Jeremiah. ¹³⁵ He does it to attract customers, not for idolatrous practices. The reason of the original prohibition is that any perfuming by Gentiles is done for their idols.

One may make the benediction over a lantern even if it did not go out¹³⁶.. A lamp in his bosom or in a lantern¹³⁷ or in glass¹³⁸ “transparence; window panes, window (adj., plur. n.)”. This term is missing in the Tosephta (5:31) and the parallel in the Babli (53b)., if he sees the flame and does not use its light, or uses the light but does not see the flame, one never recites the benediction until one sees the flame and uses the light.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ This is the language of the Tosephta (5:31) following the Erfurth manuscript. The Babli (53a) has a slightly different formulation for the same statement. Since one permits a benediction over light that was burning at nightfall, the Tosephta must deal with the benediction after Yom Kippur ¹³⁷ Greek φανός, “torch, light”. ¹³⁸ Latin specularia

Five¹³⁹ 4:7. There is a similar baraita in Babli Beẓah 29a but it has no reference to Havdalah. things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter¹⁴⁰ 29a) declares the prohibition of its use as Rabbinic decree. The following cases all derive from the same principle.. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries out burning charcoal into the public domain¹⁴¹ 29a) discusses how one could possibly move the flame without the underlying coal. is guilty but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav¹⁴² which specifies explicitly that glowing but not crackling coals are not to be used for the benediction. [The title “Rebbi” in the text is again a scribal error.]: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Yoḥanan from Karẓion¹⁴³ in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if [the flame] is jumping off¹⁴⁴.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Tosephta Beẓah ¹⁴⁰ Coal is a material, so if one takes it for unauthorized use he commits larceny. A flame is essentially immaterial; the Babli (Beẓah ¹⁴¹ On the Sabbath. The Babli (Beẓah ¹⁴² In the Babli (53b) this is a baraita ¹⁴³ An Amora whose time cannot be determined since he appears only here. Karẓion is today’s Kaẓion in Upper Galilee; the reading קייציון of the Rome ms. might be better. ¹⁴⁴ More or less this is the definition of “crackling.”

It was stated “A Gentile who lit from a Jew and a Jew who lit from a Gentile.¹⁴⁵ 5:31. The text continues: “One recites the benediction.” In the Babli (53a) there is a baraita that combines the two formulations of the Yerushalmi.” One understands a Gentile who lit from a Jew¹⁴⁶, but then even a Gentile who lit from a Gentile? It was found that it was stated: “One does not recite the benediction if a Gentile [lit] from a Gentile.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Tosephta Berakhot ¹⁴⁶ Since the Jew made new fire after the end of Sabbath. Similarly, one considers the act of lighting a fire from the existing fire of a Gentile as creation of a new light by a Jew after the end of Sabbath. But a Gentile lighting from a Gentile cannot do this since he never had a moment when making a fire was forbidden to him.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: A dead end street of Gentiles and one Jew lives in it, if light comes from there one recites the benediction because of the one Jew who is there¹⁴⁷. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One does not recite the benediction on the spices¹⁴⁸ but about the benediction that is required for the enjoyment of perfume. In the Babli (53a), R. Joḥanan is more explicit and says that these perfumes are burned to disinfect clothes; hence, they are not produced for human enjoyment. of Friday afternoon in Tiberias, nor on the spices of Sabbath night of Sepphoris, nor on light¹⁴⁹ and spices of Friday Eve in Sepphoris, because they are for other purposes.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ If the one who sees the light knows the Jew living there. ¹⁴⁸ Obviously, here one does not speak about Havdalah ¹⁴⁹ The mention of light here makes no sense, but it is found in both mss.

“Nor over lamp and spices for the dead.¹⁵⁰” Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, if they are put at the head of the bier. But if they are put in front of the bier one may recite the benediction; I say they are put there for the honor of the living¹⁵¹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Quote from the Mishnah. ¹⁵¹ The reason that one may not recite the benediction over perfumes and light arranged for the deceased is that one may not have any use from things given to the dead. But if they are arranged for the convenience of the living who are paying their respects, one may use them for a benediction. The parallel in the Babli (53a) has another definition: Light burning only in the night is acceptable; that which burns day and night is not.

“Nor over lamp and spices set before an idol.¹⁵⁰” Is not that of Gentiles identical¹⁵² with that of idolatry? Explain it with the idol of a Jew.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Quote from the Mishnah. ¹⁵² Why are light of idolatry and light of Gentiles mentioned as separate items in the Mishnah?

“Also, one does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.¹⁵⁰” Rebbi Zeïra, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, preached: (Gen. 1:4) “God saw the light that it was good” and after that, “God separated between the light and the darkness.¹⁵³ one should not make Havdalah until he saw the light and that it is useful. The same paragraph is found in Bereshit rabba3(7) in slightly more explicit language.”. Rebbi Berekhiah said: The following was preached by the two greats of the world, Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “God separated,” a true separation. Rebbi Yehudah, the son of Rebbi Simon, said: He separated it for Himself¹⁵⁴. But the rabbis say, He separated it for the just in the future world. They gave a parable, to what can this situation be compared? To a king who had two generals¹⁵⁵; both of them said: “I want to command during the day.” He called the first one and told him: day shall be your domain. He called the second one and told him: night shall be your domain. That is what is written: (Gen. 1:5) “God called the light ‘day’, etc.” To the light he said: day shall be your domain; but to the darkness he said: night shall be your domain. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that it is which the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Job: (Job 38:12) “Did you ever command the morning, did you inform the morning of its place?” Do you know the place where the light of the Six Days of Creation was hidden? Rebbi Tanḥuma said: I shall give its reason. (Is. 45:7) “He Who fashioned the light and created darkness, He makes peace.” When it left¹⁵⁶: “From the moment that they were created, He is making peace.”, it made peace between them.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Quote from the Mishnah. ¹⁵³ In imitatio Dei, ¹⁵⁴ That this is the light of the Shekhinah. ¹⁵⁵ Greek (sing.) στρατηγός. ¹⁵⁶ In Bereshit rabba

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y’utu, and Samuel says y‘utu¹⁵⁷ (’) and ayin(‘) (and he, ḥet); they re-acquired the differences only later under the influence of Arabic. Similarly, under the influence of Greek, in the speech of most Galileans also aleph and ayin had become silent. Since the Mishnah was transmitted orally, there was no difference in pronunciation between the two silent consonants and the interpretation of the words depended on whether one was imagining one or the other. The particular case here is not discussed in the Babli. The examples from Eruvin and Avodah zarah are discussed following these Mishnayot in the Babli where at other places one also finds examples of a silent ח (Beẓah35b) and switches between ס (s) and צ (ss) (Bava qama 116b). In most cases, roots of Rabbinic expressions are sought in Biblical Hebrew.. He who says y’utu, (Gen. 34:15) “But with this we shall be agreeable (nē’ôt) to you.” He who says y‘utu, (Is. 50:4) “To know, to inform (lā‘ût) the weary of wisdom.” There (Mishnah Erubin 5:1) we have stated: How does one complete cities¹⁵⁸? Rav says m’abb**rin, and Samuel says m‘abberin. He who says me*’abberin,* one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says me*‘abberin,* like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles159. Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen, (Deut. 32:35) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen, (*Is.*44:9) “They¹⁶⁰ 2a), the interpretation of this verse takes up several pages. are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Under the influence of Accadic, Babylonian Jews early on had lost the difference between aleph ¹⁵⁸ “Completion” is the determination of a rectangle oriented NS, EW whose edges are distant 2000 cubits from the last house of the city in that direction. ¹⁶⁰ The idols. In the Babli (Avodah zarah

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless he has profited from its light.” Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: So that women would be able to spin by its light. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: So that his eye should see what is in the cup or in the bowl. Rav Ḥinena said, so that he should be able to distinguish between two coins¹⁶¹ (1/24 denarius) and a dupondius (1/12 denarius); in the opinion of Ḥizqiah, one has to distinguish between local coins of the same weight and value but different mints. Since R. Ḥinena is the student of R. Yoḥanan, it seems that he is following Ulla’s opinion..

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ Rav Yehudah is the most restrictive, following the old Babylonian custom. In the Babli (53b) there are two opinions, both by early Galilean authorities; so it seems that R. Ḥinena, the student of R. Yoḥanan, is referring to earlier statements. In the opinion of Ulla, one must be able to distinguish between an as

Rebbi Oshaia stated: Even if it was a banquet hall of ten by ten¹⁶² is a banquet hall in the Roman style, the “ten” probably are not Jewish cubits but Roman passus, of 4.5 feet each. Then the distance from a light kindled in one corner to the observer in the corner diagonally opposed would be about 67 feet; based on cubits it would be 48 feet, still a great distance in an otherwise dark room., one recites the benediction. Rebbi Zeïra went close to the light. His students told him: Why does our teacher make it so difficult for us, did not Rebbi Oshaya formulate: “even if it was a banquet hall of ten by ten, one recites the benediction¹⁶³?”

footnotes: ¹⁶² Since the triclinium ¹⁶³ In the Babli (53a), R. Zeïra is quoted that originally he insisted on making the benediction over his own light (following an old Babylonian custom), but that he changed his opinion after hearing that great authorities allow one to make the benediction even over fire lit by other people in their houses, as explained earlier in this Halakhah. That report must date from the time when he visited Babylonia after becoming head of his own Yeshivah in Galilee.

MISHNAH: He who ate, forgot, and did not recite Grace. The House of Shammai say, he should return to his place¹⁶⁴ and recite. The House of Hillel say, he should recite at the place where he remembers it. How long¹⁶⁵ may he recite? Until the food is digested in his bowels.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ The place of the meal. ¹⁶⁵ After the end of the meal, so that he should not by guilty of disregarding a biblical commandment.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Justus bar Shunem¹⁶⁶ said: Two Amoraïm, one proposed the reason of the House of Shammai and the other proposed the reason of the House of Hillel. He who proposed the reason of the House of Shammai: If he had forgotten there a wallet full of precious stones and pearls, would he not go back and retrieve his wallet? Here also, let him return to his place and recite Grace. He who proposed the reason of the House of Hillel: A worker who worked at the top of a date palm or at the bottom of a cistern, would one bother him to return and recite Grace? No, he should recite at the place where he remembers. So here also, he should recite at the place where he remembers¹⁶⁷ and the argument of the House of Hillel precedes that of the House of Shammai. Hence, its implication is that the House of Shammai require the worker to return to his dangerous place and his employer to pay for the time lost. In this case, it seems that the Yerushalmi reports a deliberate change from earlier practice in order to embody a change in labor law..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ A late Amora, student of Rebbi Mana II. ¹⁶⁷ In the formulation here, it is agreed that a worker at a dangerous place does not have to return (a) to expose himself to unnecessary danger and (b) to spend unproductive time at the expense of his employer who is required to pay his entire day. In the Babli (53b), the entire discussion is a baraita

How long may he recite? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel, until the food in his bowels is digested. But the sages say, all the time that he is thirsty because of that meal¹⁶⁸. Rebbi Yoḥanan says, until he gets hungry again¹⁶⁹, 1 hour 12 min., has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. The difference between the Galilean יתאכל and the Babylonian יתעכל is dialectal; the Babylonian Mishnah has יתעכל. Since Samuel was a medical doctor, his explanation “until the food was digested” may have been practical for him; it certainly is not practical for everybody else. It is therefore not necessary to say that R. Yoḥanan is more restrictive than the Mishnah (as is the opinion of the student of Rabbenu Jonah in his commentary on Alfassi.).

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ Presumably, if he did not drink during the meal. ¹⁶⁹ The Babli (53b) quotes R. Yoḥanan as is he quoted here and attributes the statement of the Sages (that would guide practice here) to R. Simeon ben Laqish, whose opinion carries less weight than that of R. Yoḥanan. Another statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish, who gives as maximum the time it would take to walk four mil

MISHNAH: If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup. The House of Shammai say, he recites the benediction over wine and afterwards says Grace, but the House of Hillel say, he recites Grace and afterwards the benediction over wine. One answers “Amen” after a Jew but one does not answer “Amen” after a Samaritan unless one has heard the entire benediction¹⁷⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Since the Samaritan follows a non-standard form of Judaism, one may not answer after his benediction unless one has ascertained that his benediction is compatible with our rules.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink¹⁷⁰. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and will not forget.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ While Grace should be recited over an untouched cup of wine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai this does not apply here; see the start of Halakhah 1. The next sentence belongs only there (Note 23); it was copied here by mistake.

Hence¹⁷¹, one answers “Amen” after a Jew even though one did not hear. Did we not formulate: If he heard¹⁷² but did not answer, he did his duty. If he answered but did not hear, he did not do his duty. Ḥiyya, the son of Rav¹⁷³, said: when he did not eat with them the volume of an olive¹⁷⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ This is implied by the last sentence of the Mishnah. ¹⁷² Any of the obligatory prayers (if he himself is unable to recite them, or under the conditions discussed in the next paragraph) or benedictions may be performed by listening to an equally obliged person. ¹⁷³ The only known son of Rav, who had the best of Rav’s students as teachers; hence, he must have been born to Rav rather late in his life. After the death of Rav, he was a student of Samuel. He is usually quoted without any title (maybe he did not want to be addressed with a title that was the commonly used nickname of his father) but it is known that he acted in a Rabbinical capacity. He had a son who also was a scholar. ¹⁷⁴ He answers: “Amen” for the benediction but not in order to fulfill his own obligation. The parallel, without the question asked, appears in Babli 53b.

Here¹⁷⁵ 3:12; “here” refers to the discussion of Hallel in that tractate. The entire paragraph deals with the recitation of Hallel; the parallel in the Babli is Sukkah 38b., a baraita states: “If he heard but did not answer, he did his duty. If he answered but did not hear, he did not do his duty.” Rav in the name of Abba bar Ḥana¹⁷⁶, or, as some say, Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav, that is only if he answered the beginnings of chapters. Rebbi Zeïra inquired, what are beginnings of chapters? (Ps. 113:1) “Hallelujah, praise, you servants of the Eternal, praise the name of the Eternal.¹⁷⁷ or the first sentence of every Psalm to be recited; cf. Tosaphot Sukkah 38b, s. v. מכאן.” They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, from where do we know that if somebody heard but did not answer, that he fulfilled his duty? He said, because we see great rabbis acting accordingly. They stand in the congregation where some say (Ps. 118:26): “Blessed he who comes,” and the others say: “in the name of the Eternal,” and all have fulfilled their duty¹⁷⁸ 38b) and is accepted in most Jewish groups..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ This paragraph is a copy of the corresponding one in Sukkah ¹⁷⁶ A cousin of Rav who studied with him under their common uncle R. Ḥiyya. In contrast to Rav, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana did not return to Babylonia permanently. In the Babli, the statement is reported in the name of Rav’s son-in-law Rav Ḥanan bar Abba. ¹⁷⁷ Neither here nor in the Babli is it clear whether “headings” means only the first sentence of Hallel ¹⁷⁸ Hence, it is unnecessary in the recitation of Psalms or synagogal poetry that in responsively recited pieces everyone should pronounce everything; the practice given here is also endorsed by the Babli (Sukkah

Rebbi Oshaya stated: One answers “Amen” even if he did not eat¹⁷⁹, but he may not say: “Let us bless Him, of Whose bounty we ate,” except if he did eat.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ This is the rule formulated by Ḥiyya bar Rav. The second rule was illustrated by R. Simeon ben Shetaḥ and king Yannai, Halakhah 7:2.

It is stated¹⁸⁰ 3:27, also Babli Berakhot 47a.: “One answers neither an orphan Amen, nor a plucked¹⁸¹ Amen, nor a hurried Amen. Ben Azai said, if one answered an orphan Amen, may his children be orphans; hurried, may the end of his days be hurried; plucked, may his soul be plucked off. For a long Amen, they lengthen his days and years in a good way.” What is an orphan Amen? Rav Huna said, that is one who sits to recite a blessing, he answers Amen, and is not conscious for what he answered Amen.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Tosephta Megillah ¹⁸¹ Amen not completely pronounced.

It is stated: One answers Amen after a Gentile who recited a benediction for the Eternal, [but if he recited a benediction with the Name one does not answer¹⁸² 5:21). The correct interpretation seems to be that given by R. Saul Lieberman in Tosephta kifshutah: Since the Gentile is not subject to our rules, if he praises the Eternal, one answers after him Amen. But if he uses a Jewish formula, one may not answer after him Amen unless one has ascertained that he conformed with our rules..] Rebbi Tanḥuma said, if a Gentile blesses you, answer after him Amen since it is written (Deut. 7:14) “You shall be blessed by all peoples.” A Gentile met Rebbi Joshua and blessed him. He answered: The word about you has already been said. He met a second one who cursed him; he answered: The word about you has already been said. His students said to him: Rebbi, did you say to the one what you said to the other? He said to them, so it is written (Gen. 27:29): “Those who curse you are cursed, but those who bless you are blessed.”

footnotes: ¹⁸² The text in parenthesis is from the Rome manuscript; it seems that it is missing from the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print because here also, the final clause “one answers only if one heard the entire benediction” is missing since it is implied by the Mishnah. The complete text is that of most sources of the Tosephta (Berakhot