וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַנֵּר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ. We learned in the mishna: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא ״יֵאוֹתוּ״ יֵאוֹתוּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ עוֹמֵד בְּקָרוֹב וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם שָׁנִינוּ. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Derives benefit does not mean that the one reciting the blessing must actually derive benefit from the light of the candle. Rather, as long as if one were to stand close to the candle he could utilize its light, if he sees it he may recite a blessing over it, even if he is now standing at a distance.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיְתָה לוֹ נֵר טְמוּנָה בְּחֵיקוֹ, אוֹ בְּפַנָּס, אוֹ שֶׁרָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ וְלֹא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ. The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta: One who had a candle hidden in his lap or placed inside an opaque lamp, or if he saw a flame and did not utilize its light, or if he utilized its light and did not see a flame, may not recite a blessing until he both sees the flame and utilizes its light.
בִּשְׁלָמָא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ וְלֹא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — דְּקַיְימָא בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית. אֶלָּא רָאָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָאו דִּמְרַחֲקָא?! The Gemara first clarifies the content of the Tosefta itself: Granted, a case where one utilizes its light and did not see a flame, can be found where the flame is situated around a corner, illuminating the area but hidden from his view. But how can a case where one saw a flame and did not utilize its light be found? Is it not referring to a case where one is distant? Apparently, one must actually utilize the flame; merely having the potential to utilize it is not sufficient.
לָא, כְּגוֹן דְּעָמְיָא וְאָזְלָא. The Gemara rejects this: No. This refers to a case where the flame is gradually dimming. One sees the flame, but is unable to utilize its light.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֶּחָלִים לוֹחֲשׁוֹת — מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹמְמוֹת — אֵין מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי לוֹחֲשׁוֹת? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָן קֵיסָם וְדוֹלֶקֶת מֵאֵילֶיהָ. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may recite a blessing over smoldering coals just as he does over a candle; however, over dimming [omemot] coals, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of smoldering coals? Rav Ḥisda said: Smoldering coals are any coals that, if one places a wood chip among them, it ignites on its own without fanning the flame.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״אוֹמְמוֹת״ אוֹ ״עוֹמְמוֹת״? With regard to the wording of the baraita, the Gemara raises a dilemma: Does the baraita say omemot beginning with an alef, or omemot beginning with an ayin?
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״אֲרָזִים לֹא עֲמָמֻהוּ בְּגַן אֱלֹהִים״. Come and hear a resolution, as Rav Ḥisda bar Avdimi said: The correct version is omemot beginning with an ayin, as it is stated: “The cedars in the garden of God could not dim it [amamuhu]” (Ezekiel 31:8).
וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״יֵאוֹתוּ״ מַמָּשׁ. And with regard to the question whether or not one must actually benefit from the flame’s light in order to recite a blessing, Rava said: When the mishna said benefit, it meant that he must actually derive benefit from the light.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין אִיסָּר לְפוּנְדְּיוֹן. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר בֵּין מְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא לִמְלוּזְמָא שֶׁל צִפּוֹרִי. The Gemara asks: And how adjacent must one be in order to be considered to have derived benefit from the flame? Ulla said: So that he can distinguish between an issar and a pundeyon, two coins of the period. Ḥizkiya said: So that he can distinguish between a weight used in Tiberias and a weight used in Tzippori, which were slightly different.
רַב יְהוּדָה מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי אַדָּא דַּיָּילָא, רָבָא מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי גּוּרְיָא בַּר חָמָא. אַבָּיֵי מְבָרֵךְ אַדְּבֵי בַּר אֲבוּהּ. The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵין מְחַזְּרִין עַל הָאוּר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְחַזְּרִים עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה מְהַדַּרְנָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אֲנָא נָמֵי לָא מְהַדַּרְנָא, אֶלָּא אִי מִקְּלַע לִי מִמֵּילָא — מְבָרֵיכְנָא. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said a general halakhic principle: One need not seek out light at the conclusion of Shabbat in the manner that one seeks out other mitzvot. If no flame is available over which to recite a blessing, it does not prevent one from reciting havdala. And Rav Zeira said: Initially I would seek out light, once I heard this halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, I too do not seek out light. However, if a candle happens to become available to me, I recite a blessing over it.
מִי שֶׁאָכַל וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב דִּימִי בַּר אַבָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשָׁכַח, אֲבָל בְּמֵזִיד, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — יַחְזוֹר לִמְקוֹמוֹ וִיבָרֵךְ. Our mishna cited a dispute regarding one who ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing; Beit Shammai say: He returns to the place where he ate and recites the blessing. Beit Hillel say: That is unnecessary. He recites the blessing at the place where he remembered. Rav Zevid said and some say Rav Dimi bar Abba said: This dispute is only with regard to a case where one forgot to recite the blessing, but if he did so intentionally, everyone agrees that he must return to the place where he ate and recite a blessing.
פְּשִׁיטָא, ״וְשָׁכַח״ תְּנַן. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. We learned in the mishna: And forgot, not if he did so intentionally.
מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵזִיד, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְשָׁכַח״ — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the same is true, that Beit Hillel permit one to recite a blessing without returning to the place where he ate, even in a case where he willfully did not recite a blessing, and that which was taught: And forgot, is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, who require him to return to the place where he ate even if he forgot, Rav Zevid teaches us that there is no disagreement in that case.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁאָכַל בְּרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה וְשָׁכַח וְיָרַד וְלֹא בֵּרַךְ, יַחְזוֹר לְרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה וִיבָרֵךְ?! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם מִי שֶׁשָּׁכַח אַרְנָקִי בְּרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה וְיִטְלֶנָּה? לִכְבוֹד עַצְמוֹ הוּא עוֹלֶה, לִכְבוֹד שָׁמַיִם לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! It was taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, one who ate atop the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, and forgot and descended without reciting a blessing, must he return to the top of the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, to recite a blessing? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Why not? And according to your statement, one who forgot his purse atop the Temple Mount, God’s chosen place of residence, would he not ascend to retrieve it? If one ascends in deference to his own needs, all the more so he should ascend in deference to Heaven.
הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַּלְמִידֵי, חַד עֲבַד בְּשׁוֹגֵג כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְאַשְׁכַּח אַרְנְקָא דְּדַהֲבָא, וְחַד עֲבַד בְּמֵזִיד כְּבֵית הִלֵּל וְאַכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא. The Gemara relates: There were these two students who ate and did not recite a blessing. One of them did so unwittingly, and, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, returned to where he ate, and found a purse of gold. One of them did so intentionally, and, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, albeit in circumstances where they agree with Beit Shammai, did not return and a lion ate him.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵל בְּשַׁיַּירְתָּא, אֲכַל וְאִשְׁתְּלִי וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. אֲמַר: הֵיכִי אַעֲבֵיד? אִי אָמֵינָא לְהוּ ״אִנְּשַׁאי לְבָרֵךְ״, אָמְרוּ לִי: בָּרֵיךְ, כׇּל הֵיכָא דִּמְבָרְכַתְּ — לְרַחֲמָנָא מְבָרְכַתְּ. מוּטָב דְּאָמֵינָא לְהוּ: אִנְּשַׁאי יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִנְטַרוּ לִי, דְּאִנְּשַׁאי יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא. אָזֵיל וּבָרֵיךְ וְאַשְׁכַּח יוֹנָה דְּדַהֲבָא. The Gemara further relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was once traveling with a caravan. He ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing. He said to himself: What shall I do? If I say to them: I forgot to recite a blessing, they will say to me to recite a blessing here, as wherever you recite a blessing, you recite a blessing to God. It is better that I say to them: I forgot a golden dove. Then they will wait for me while I retrieve it. He said to them: Wait for me, as I forgot a golden dove. He went and recited a blessing and found a golden dove.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא יוֹנָה? דִּמְתִילִי כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיוֹנָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה נֶחְפָּה בַכֶּסֶף וְאֶבְרוֹתֶיהָ בִּירַקְרַק חָרוּץ״ — מָה יוֹנָה אֵינָהּ נִיצּוֹלֶת אֶלָּא בִּכְנָפֶיהָ, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן נִיצּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּמִצְוֹת. The Gemara asks: What is different about a dove, that he specifically said that that was the object that he forgot? The Gemara answers: Because the community of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is written: “The wings of a dove, covered in silver, and its pinions with the shimmer of gold” (Psalms 68:14). The Gemara explains the parable: Just as a dove is saved from its enemies only by its wings, so too, Israel is saved only by the merit of the mitzvot.
עַד אֵימָתַי הוּא וְכוּ׳. We learned in the mishna: And until when does he recite the blessing? Until the food is digested in his intestines.
כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר עִכּוּל? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָעֵב. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּצְמָא מֵחֲמַת אֲכִילָתוֹ. The Gemara asks: What is the duration of digestion? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As long as he is not yet hungry again. And Reish Lakish said: As long as he is thirsty due to his eating.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֵׁיזְבִי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר עִכּוּל? — כְּדֵי לְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע מִילִין! Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said to Mar Zutra, and some say that it was Rav Yeimar bar Sheizevi who said to Mar Zutra: Did Reish Lakish say that? Didn’t Rav Ami say that Reish Lakish said: What is the duration of digestion? As long as it takes to walk four mil?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּאֲכִילָה מְרוּבָּה, כָּאן בַּאֲכִילָה מוּעֶטֶת. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Reish Lakish said the duration is as long as it takes to walk four mil, is in a case where he ate a sizable meal, here, where Reish Lakish said the duration is as long as he remains thirsty, is in a case where he ate a meager meal.
בָּא לָהֶן יַיִן וְכוּ׳. We learned in the mishna a tannaitic dispute with regard to a case where wine came before the diners after the meal, and we also learned in the mishna that one answers amen after a Jew recites a blessing even if he did not hear the entire blessing.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שָׁמַע כּוּלָּהּ בְּרָכָה עוֹנֶה? וְכִי לָא שָׁמַע הֵיכִי נָפֵיק? The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if a Jew recites a blessing, even though one did not hear the entire blessing, he responds amen? If he did not hear the entire blessing, how did he fulfill his obligation?
אָמַר חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶן, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְחִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ: בְּרִי, חֲטוֹף וּבָרֵיךְ. וְכֵן אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא לְרַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ: חֲטוֹף וּבָרֵיךְ. Ḥiyya bar Rav said: This is not a case where one seeks to fulfill his obligation by responding amen; rather, it is a case where he did not eat with them yet still wishes to answer amen to their blessing. And so Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is a case where he did not eat with them. The Gemara relates: Rav said to his son, Ḥiyya: My son, seize the opportunity and recite a blessing quickly. And similarly Rav Huna said to his son, Rabba, seize the opportunity and recite a blessing.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְבָרֵךְ עֲדִיף מִמַּאן דְּעָנֵי ״אָמֵן״? וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ יוֹתֵר מִן הַמְבָרֵךְ. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who recites a blessing is preferable to one who answers amen? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The reward of the one who answers amen is greater than the reward of the one who recites the blessing?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי: הַשָּׁמַיִם, כֵּן הוּא. תִּדַּע — שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּלְיָירִין יוֹרְדִין וּמִתְגָּרִין בַּמִּלְחָמָה, וְגִבּוֹרִים יוֹרְדִין וּמְנַצְּחִין! Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By Heavens, an oath in the name of God, it is so. Know that this is true, as the military assistants [gulyarin] descend to the battlefield and initiate the war and the mighty descend and prevail. The amen that follows a blessing is compared to the mighty who join the war after the assistants, illustrating that answering amen is more significant than reciting the initial blessing.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַמְבָרֵךְ וְאֶחָד הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ בַּמַּשְׁמָע, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין לַמְבָרֵךְ יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹנֶה אָמֵן. The Gemara responds: This is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: Both the one who recites a blessing and the one who answers amen are included among those who “stand up and bless” (Nehemiah 9:5), but they hurry to reward, i.e., the one who recites the blessing, more than they hurry to reward, i.e., the one who answers amen.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב: מַהוּ לַעֲנוֹת ״אָמֵן״ אַחַר תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחַר הַכֹּל עוֹנִין אָמֵן, חוּץ מִתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, הוֹאִיל וּלְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲשׂוּיִין. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְלָא עִידָּן מִפְטְרַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל בְּעִידָּן מִפְטְרַיְיהוּ — עוֹנִין. Shmuel raised a dilemma before Rav: What is the halakha with regard to answering amen after the blessings of schoolchildren? Rav said to him: One answers amen following everyone whom we hear recite a blessing, except for schoolchildren, as they recite blessings merely in order to learn them, not as expressions of thanksgiving. This applies specifically at a time when they are not fulfilling their obligation with the recitation of the blessing, but are simply learning. However, at a time when they are fulfilling their obligation through the recitation of a blessing, one answers amen after their blessing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַבְּרָכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי זִילַאי. רַבִּי זִיוַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. רַב אַחָא אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן טוֹב מְעַכֵּב. רַבִּי זוּהֲמַאי אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּזֹוהָם פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, כָּךְ יָדַיִם מְזוֹהָמוֹת פְּסוּלוֹת לִבְרָכָה. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one does not have oil to spread on and cleanse his hands after eating, this prevents him from reciting the Grace after Meals blessing; this is the statement of Rabbi Zilai. Rabbi Zivai says: Lack of that oil does not prevent one from reciting Grace after Meals. Rav Aḥa says: Lack of fine oil prevents one from reciting Grace after Meals. One must wait until he rubs oil on his hands. Rav Zuhamai says: Just as one who is filthy is unfit for Temple service, so too are filthy hands unfit for reciting the Grace after Meals blessing.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֲנָא לָא זִילַאי וְלָא זִיוַאי וְלָא זוּהֲמַאי יָדַעְנָא אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם״ אֵלּוּ מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים, ״וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים״ אֵלּוּ מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים, ״כִּי קָדוֹשׁ״ — זֶה שֶׁמֶן, ״אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ — זוֹ בְּרָכָה. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said of this: I do not know of Zilai or Zivai or Zuhamai; rather, I know a baraita, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for holy am I, the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:26). With regard to this verse, the Sages said: And you shall sanctify yourselves, these are the first waters with which one washes his hands before the meal; and you shall be holy, these are the final waters; for holy, this is oil which one spreads on his hands; am I, the Lord your God, this is the Grace after Meals blessing.
הדרן עלך אלו דברים May we return unto thee : The following are the points of variance !