Pesachim 101bפסחים ק״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Pesachim 101b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
101bק״א ב
1 א

ואחד שינוי מקום אין צריך לברך מיתיבי שינוי מקום צריך לברך שינוי יין אין צריך לברך תיובתא דרבי יוחנן תיובתא

and a change of place, i.e., one moves to a different location in the middle of his meal, he need not recite a new blessing. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a change of place one must recite a new blessing; however, in a case of a change of wine one need not recite another blessing. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is indeed a conclusive refutation.

2 ב

יתיב רב אידי בר אבין קמיה דרב חסדא ויתיב רב חסדא וקאמר משמיה דרב הונא הא דאמרת שינוי מקום צריך לברך לא שנו אלא מבית לבית אבל ממקום למקום לא

The Gemara relates: Rav Idi bar Avin sat before Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda sat and said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that after a change of place following kiddush one must recite a new blessing, they only taught this halakha with regard to one who moves from house to house; however, with regard to one who moves from place to place within one house, no, he is not obligated to recite a new blessing.

3 ג

אמר ליה רב אידי בר אבין הכי תנינא ליה במתניתא דבי רב הינק ואמרי ליה במתניתא דבי בר הינק כוותיך ואלא רב הונא מתניתא קא משמע לן רב הונא מתניתא לא שמיע ליה

Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is indeed what we learned in the baraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say in the baraita of the school of bar Hinak, in accordance with your ruling. The Gemara asks: But if there is a baraita that states the same halakha, does Rav Huna merely come to teach us a baraita? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna taught the halakha quoted in the baraita because he had not heard the baraita. Rav Huna independently issued the same ruling as that of the baraita.

4 ד

ותו יתיב רב חסדא וקאמר משמיה דנפשיה הא דאמרת שינוי מקום צריך לברך לא אמרן אלא בדברים שאין טעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן

And furthermore, Rav Ḥisda sat and said in his own name, not in the name of his teachers: That which you said, that after a change of place one must recite a new blessing, we only said so with regard to one who eats items of food that do not require a blessing after them in their original place, e.g., water or fruit. In a case of this kind, exiting one’s location indicates that he has concluded his meal, and when he begins to eat again, this is considered a new meal that requires a new blessing.

5 ה

אבל דברים הטעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן אין צריך לברך מאי טעמא לקיבעא קמא הדר ורב ששת אמר אחד זה ואחד זה צריך לברך

However, this is the ruling if one is eating items of food that require a blessing of significance, i.e., Grace after Meals and its abridged version, after them, e.g., one of the seven species: As this blessing must be recited in their original place, i.e., where one ate these foods, he has not completed his meal by exiting that location. Therefore, if he changes location and continues to eat, he need not recite a new blessing. What is the reason for this halakha? He returns to the originally established meal when he continues eating, as he certainly intended to continue that meal. And Rav Sheshet said: Both in this case and that case, whether or not one is eating food that requires a blessing afterward in the place where he ate, if he changes location and continues eating he must recite a new blessing.

6 ו

מיתיבי בני חבורה שהיו מסובין לשתות ועקרו רגליהן לצאת לקראת חתן או לקראת כלה כשהן יוצאין אין טעונין ברכה למפרע כשהן חוזרין אין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a baraita: With regard to members of a group who were reclining to drink, and they uprooted themselves from their place to go and greet a groom or greet a bride, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods do not require an introductory blessing.

7 ז

במה דברים אמורים שהניחו שם זקן או חולה אבל לא הניחו שם לא זקן ולא חולה כשהן יוצאין טעונין ברכה למפרע כשהן חוזרין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they left there an elderly or a sick person who cannot go with them, and he remains in the place of the meal. In this case, the original meal is considered ongoing. However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods that they have already eaten require a blessing; when they return, the foods that they will eat require an introductory blessing.

8 ח

מדקתני עקרו רגליהן מכלל דבדברים הטעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן עסקינן וטעמא דהניחו שם זקן או חולה הוא דכשהן יוצאין אין טעונין ברכה למפרע וכשהן חוזרין אין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

The Gemara infers from the baraita: From the fact that it is taught in the baraita: Uprooted themselves, this proves by inference that we are dealing with items of food that require a blessing after them in their original place. The word uprooted indicates that in the normal course of events, a blessing would have been required for this meal in its place, and for some reason the people left the meal early. And the reason is that they left there an elderly or sick person. That is why when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing.

9 ט

אבל לא הניחו שם זקן או חולה כשהן יוצאין טעונין ברכה למפרע וכשהן חוזרין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה קשיא לרב חסדא

However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods they have already eaten require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing before resuming eating. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who maintains that even if one did not return to his original location at all but resumed eating elsewhere, he need not recite a new blessing.

10 י

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: