וְלֹא בְּיָדַיִם מְזוֹהָמוֹת. nor with regard to dirty hands, i.e., with regard to washing hands at the end of a meal.
רָבִין וְאַבָּיֵי הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא, קַדְמֵיהּ חֲמָרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּין לִדְאַבָּיֵי וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״נֵיזִיל מָר״. אֲמַר: מִדִּסְלִיק הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן מִמַּעְרְבָא, גַּס לֵיהּ דַּעְתֵּיהּ. כִּי מְטָא לְפִתְחָא דְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיעַל מָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְעַד הַשְׁתָּא לָאו מָר אֲנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְכַבְּדִין אֶלָּא בְּפֶתַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מְזוּזָה. The Gemara recounts: Ravin and Abaye were traveling along the road on donkeys. Ravin’s donkey preceded Abaye’s and Ravin did not say to Abaye: Let the Master go first. Abaye said to himself: Ever since this one of the Sages, Ravin, ascended from the West, Eretz Yisrael, he has become arrogant. When they reached the door of the synagogue, Ravin said to Abaye: Let the Master enter first. Abaye said to him: Until now was I not Master? Why do you only begin deferring to me now but did not do so while we were traveling? Ravin said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said the following: One only defers to those greater than he at a doorway that has a mezuza, as only there is it appropriate to allow him to go first.
דְּאִית בַּהּ מְזוּזָה — אִין, דְּלֵית בַּהּ מְזוּזָה — לָא, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מְזוּזָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְכַבְּדִין? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּפֶתַח הָרָאוּי לִמְזוּזָה. The Gemara challenges: A doorway that has a mezuza, yes, one defers; a doorway that does not have a mezuza, no, one does not defer? If so, a synagogue or study hall that has no mezuza, there too, does one not defer at their doorways? Rather, say that this is the principle: One only shows deference at a doorway where it is worthy of affixing a mezuza, but not on a road or a bridge.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין הַמְסוּבִּין רַשָּׁאִין לֶאֱכוֹל כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם הַבּוֹצֵעַ. יָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא וְקָאָמַר: ״לִטְעוֹם״ אִיתְּמַר. The Gemara continues with the subject of deferring to one’s superior during a meal: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Those reclining at a meal may not eat anything until the one breaking bread has tasted the bread. Rav Safra sat and said: May not taste, was stated by Rav, and not: May not eat.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? שֶׁחַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make whether Rav said taste or eat? The Gemara explains that there is no difference and that Rav Safra’s insistence teaches that one must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher without altering a single detail.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנַיִם מַמְתִּינִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּקְּעָרָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין מַמְתִּינִין. הַבּוֹצֵעַ הוּא פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ תְּחִלָּה, וְאִם בָּא לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לְרַבּוֹ אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. The Gemara continues to discuss the subject of honors during a meal. The Sages taught: Two people who are eating from a single dish must wait for each other, but if there are three, everyone eats when he wishes and they need not wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to defer to his teacher or to one who is greater than he, he has permission to do so.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה עָסֵיק לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ בֵּי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא, קָדֵים וְיָתֵיב וְקָמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ: אֵין הַבּוֹצֵעַ רַשַּׁאי לִבְצוֹעַ עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה ״אָמֵן״ מִפִּי הָעוֹנִים. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מִפִּי רוֹב הָעוֹנִים. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana engaged in preparations for his son’s wedding in the house of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Ketina. He arrived early and sat and taught his son the halakhot of meals: The one who breaks bread may not break the bread until amen has ended from the mouths of those responding. Rav Ḥisda said: One need only wait until amen has ended from the mouths of the majority of those responding.
אָמַר לוֹ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַאי שְׁנָא רוּבָּא — דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא כָּלְיָא בְּרָכָה, מִיעוּטָא נָמֵי לָא כָּלְיָא בְּרָכָה? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: What is different regarding the majority that one must wait until their amen ends before proceeding? That until then, the blessing has not yet concluded. If so, when the amen of the minority has not yet ended as well, the blessing has not yet concluded. Why doesn’t the one breaking bread need to wait in that case?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, כׇּל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Because I say that anyone who answers an amen of excessive duration is merely mistaken.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין עוֹנִין לֹא ״אָמֵן״ חֲטוּפָה, וְלֹא ״אָמֵן״ קְטוּפָה, וְלֹא ״אָמֵן״ יְתוֹמָה, וְלֹא יִזְרוֹק בְּרָכָה מִפִּיו. With regard to answering amen, the Sages taught: One should not respond with an abbreviated [ḥatufa] amen, in which the first syllable is not properly enunciated, and a truncated [ketufa] amen, in which the second syllable is not properly enunciated, and an orphaned [yetoma] amen, in which the respondent is unaware of the blessing to which he is responding. Similarly, one should not quickly and indifferently discharge a blessing from his mouth.
בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יְתוֹמָה — יִהְיוּ בָּנָיו יְתוֹמִים, חֲטוּפָה — יִתְחַטְּפוּ יָמָיו, קְטוּפָה — יִתְקַטְּפוּ יָמָיו. וְכׇל הַמַּאֲרִיךְ בְּ״אָמֵן״ — מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו וּשְׁנוֹתָיו. Ben Azzai says: Anyone who recites an orphaned amen, his children will be orphaned; one who recites an abbreviated amen, his days will be abbreviated and incomplete; one who recites a truncated amen, his days will be truncated. One who extends his amen, they will extend his days and years for him. Nonetheless, one should not prolong it extensively.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. אֲתָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא, הֲוָה קָמְסַרְהֵב וְאָכֵיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: מָה דַעְתָּךְ — לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי בַּהֲדַן, אֲנַן אֲכִילְנָא לַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: אִלּוּ מַיְיתוּ לִי אַרְדִּילַיָּא וְגוֹזָלַיָּא לְאַבָּא, מִי לָא אָכְלִינַן? Returning to matters of zimmun, the Gemara relates: Rav and Shmuel were sitting at a meal when, much later, Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya arrived and was hurrying and eating. Rav said to him: What is your thinking? Are you rushing in order to join together with us for a zimmun? We have already eaten and finished our meal before you arrived. Shmuel said to Rav: We have not really finished our meal, as if they brought me truffles or a young pigeon for Abba, Rav, wouldn’t we eat it? Since we would still eat, we have not yet finished our meal and Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya can join us in the zimmun.
תַּלְמִידֵי דְּרַב הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוֹדְתָּא. עָל רַב אַחָא. אָמְרִי: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּא דִּמְבָרֵךְ לַן. אָמַר לְהוּ: מִי סָבְרִיתוּ דְּגָדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ? עִיקָּר שֶׁבַּסְּעוּדָה מְבָרֵךְ. וְהִלְכְתָא גָּדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲתָא לְבַסּוֹף. Rav’s students were seated at a meal when Rav Aḥa entered. The students said: A great man has come who can recite the blessing on our behalf. Rav Aḥa said to them: Do you think that the greatest recites the blessing? That is not so. Rather, one of the main participants who was present from the beginning of the meal recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: The halakha, however, is that the greatest person present recites the blessing, even if he arrived at the end of the meal.
אָכַל דְּמַאי וְכוּ׳: הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי, וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. In the mishna, we learned that if, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], he is included among the three to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun. The Gemara raises an objection: But demai is not fit for his consumption. He is forbidden to eat demai. The Gemara responds: He may recite Grace after Meals over it because, if he wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless [hefker] and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers [akhsania], whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished and soldiers demai.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ: פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בַּשִּׁבֳּלִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בַּשִּׁבֳּלִים — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״ — מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. We learned in the mishna: If, among the diners, one ate first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, he may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach that one can join a zimmun? The Gemara explains: It was only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, and he separated the teruma of the tithes but did not separate the teruma gedola. Teruma gedola was not separated from the tithe that was eaten by the Levite. Although this should not be done ab initio, after the fact it is permitted, and one who eats first tithe produce under these circumstances may be included in a zimmun. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse stated: