**R' YEHOSHUA, WHO SAID [THAT] ONE DISREGARDS A HEAVENLY VOICE. ** It appears that R’ Yehoshua holds, that one may never follow a heavenly voice. **And if you ask: if so,**that this Braiso follows the opinion of R’ Yehoshua that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, there is a contradiction between rulings. For in that story of R’ Yehoshua by the oven of the snake,¹ we rule like R’ Yehoshuaand we do not follow the heavenly voice that said the ruling is in accordance with R’ Eliezer, and we rule that the halochoh isalways in accordance with Bais Hilelfollowing that heavenly voice. In one instance we rule like the heavenly voice and in the other we don’t. Tosfos says that there is a difference in what the heavenly vopice is telling us. And we can answer: that exclusively thereby the oven of the snake it was said that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice because the heavenly voice wasruling **against the majority, and the Torah has already taught us that we do rule according to the majority.**Since the heavenly voice was inconsistent with the ruling of the Torah we do not follow it. However, Bais Hilel is the majorityand the heavenly voice that said to follow them is consistent with the rules of the Torah, so we do follow that heavenly voice. Since there is an essential difference between the two heavenly voices, why does the Gemara cite R’ Yehoshua’s opinion about the heavenly voice in regard to the oven in our Gemara where the subject is a heavenly voice that is consistent with the ruling of the Torah about following a majority? Even though the Gemara cites R’ Yehoshua here, even though this case is not similarto the case of the oven of the snake **because there it was different,**and R’ Yehoshua holds that the reason we do not follow the heavenly voice there is **because the heavenly voice was against the majority,but he would agree that we follow the heavenly voice here when it concurs with the majority.²However, this Tano,**of the Braiso quoted in our Gemara, is stronger than R’ Yehoshuain his rejection of heavenly voices for he says that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice even when the majority supports the heavenly voice, becausethe scholars of Bais Shamai were sharperthan Bais Hilel and that may overrule the majority. And if you ask: why is there a distinction, that for kidush and havdoloh we first recite the b’rochoh on wineand then the kidush or havdoloh, and for birchas hamozon, we do not recite the b’rochohon wine until after we recite the three b’rochosof birchas hamozon? **And we can answer:**that to recite the b’rochoh on the wine before birchas hamozon would present a problem, for how could we do this? Assume we were torule that one recites the b’rochoh on wine before the birchas hamozon, if so; the birchas hamozon would constitute elimination of intentto drink the wine, since he is in the midst of reciting a b’rochoh that signifies the cessation of a meal. **For it is readily understood by other b’rochos,**such as kidush and havdoloh, the one reciting the b’rochoh has not withdrawn himself from drinking by reciting the kidush or havdoloh after the b’rochoh on wine, forwhen reciting kidush hestill wants to eat,but he must recite kidush in order to eat. The kidush is therefore not viewed as an interruption between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking. Andwhen reciting havdoloh he wants to drinkbut cannot do so until he recites havdoloh, but by birchas hamozon he withdraws himself from drinkingbecause the birchas hamozon is by definition the conclusion of a meal. The reciting of the birchas hamozon between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking of the wine, is an interruption.

footnotes: ¹ The Gemara in Bovo M’tzee’o refers to the debate about a particular oven as תנור עכנאי the oven of the snake, because they surrounded the oven with many halochos as a snake wraps itself around its victim. ² In five places elsewhere in Shas, (see M’sores Hashas for all the places in Shas where this issue is discussed) Tosfos says that although R’ Yehoshua was referring to the heavenly voice that defended R’ Eliezer, which was ruling against the majority and he could hold that we follow a heavenly voice that rules in favor of the majority, since R’ Yehoshua uses the expression “it is not in heaven”, it appears that R’ Yehoshua holds that we never follow a heavenly voice. That is why the Gemara consistently presents R’ Yehoshua as the one who holds that we do no follow a heavenly voice at all. One must speculate why Tosfos here seem to choose a different path for the resolution of this problem. Especially since Tosfos does not really seem to answer his original question. Tosfos initially asked why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned in our Gemara, since he conceivably holds that we follow a heavenly voice that is consistent with the majority? Tosfos answers that the Tano of the Braiso maintains a stronger position than R’ Yehoshua in his rejection of heavenly voices. This does not truly answer the question. We should still ask: why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned at all? It is not his position that is being taught in the Braiso. Perhaps Tosfos holds that the Gemara would not present an opinion of a Tano that flatly rejects any heavenly voice at all, unless we are already aware that R’ Yehoshua rejects a heavenly voice when it rules against the majority. Once we are aware that R’ Yehoshua holds that there are at least some heavenly voices that we need not pay heed, we can then take the next step of saying that a Tano holds that we need not pay attention to any heavenly voice.

HE LEAVES IT FOR AFTER THE MEAL By saying that we leave the cup of wine, to be used later for reciting the birchas hamozon on the wine, we are in effect saying that you can eat a meal before reciting havdoloh. This seems to cpontradict another Gemara that relates to this issue. Here it appears that one may¹ **eat before havdoloh,**because we see that the Braiso says that when one only has one cup of wine, he should eat his meal and use the wine for havdoloh and birchas hamozon. It is evident that one may eat before birchas hamozon. This is bewildering. Welearned that **Amaimar בת טוות (P’sochim 107a) this means that he spent the night in hunger because he had no wine upon which to recite havdoloh.**It is evident that one may not eat or drink if he did not yet recite havdoloh.And one can answer: thatthe story of Amaimar is differentthan the Braiso we are presently learning. **For he,**Amaimar **expected that he would have a cup of wine the next day.**Since he expected his situation to change the next day and he would be able to fulfill the mitzvoh of havdoloh on a cup of wine, he was not allowed to eat. OrAmaimar was being stringent upon himself. And herein our Gemara **it,**the situation, **is different.**When one comes home from Shul Saturday night and finds that he only has one cup of wine available and no reasonable expectation that the situation will change by tomorrow **since he,**the Tano of the Braiso **holds that birchas hamozon requires a cup of wine,**he must make a decision based on the situation as it is now, since it will most likely not change. Whenever he eats his meal, even if he puts it off for tomorrow, he will not have a cup of wine for the birchas hamozon. He does have wine now that can be used for havdoloh and birchas hamozon, it is therefore better to eat first so that the wine can be used for birchas hamozon and havdoloh and not to first recite havdoloh on the wine and then have no wine for birchas hamozon. **And therefore, he leaves it,**the wine **for birchas hamozon,**when he can fulfill both mitzvos over a cup of wine. Whereas in the case of Amaimar there was the expectation that the situation would improve the next day and he would have wine for havdoloh, he needs to wait for the next day and avoid eating before havdoloh. See Rosh.

footnotes: ¹ From our Gemara it is evident that one may eat a complete meal before havdoloh. Tosfos uses the word לטעום, which implies a small bite or a snack. The use of this word is because the Gemara in Psochim that discusses the issue uses this word because eon the negative side, it is forbidden even to taste something, not only to eat a meal.

ONE WHO TASTED [THE CUP OF WINE] DISQUALIFIED IT. One who tastes wine in a cup renders the remainder blemished. To what degree is I blemished is Tosfos discussion. **Rashbam explained, that it is only for kidush and havdoloh that it is required that the cup not be blemished, but for drinking, one is required to recite a b’rochoh even though it,**the cup is blemished, because it is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a b’rochoh. And as far as kidush and havdoloh as well, we have not said that the cup cannot be blemished, only when there is a possibilityof using some other cup. But if it is impossibleto find another cup that is not blemished, one recites the b’rochohof kidush and havdoloh **even upon a blemished cup. And he puts some water into the cup,**so that it will appear to be unblemished. As it is stated in Yerushalmee: R” Yonoh tasted the cup and he corrected itby adding water or wine and the explanation is that after he drank from it he added a drop of water or wineto correct it and then he would recite havdoloh or kidush upon it.