(טו) וְיַ֤יִן ׀ יְשַׂמַּ֬ח לְֽבַב־אֱנ֗וֹשׁ לְהַצְהִ֣יל פָּנִ֣ים מִשָּׁ֑מֶן וְ֝לֶ֗חֶם לְֽבַב־אֱנ֥וֹשׁ יִסְעָֽד׃
(15) wine that cheers the hearts of men,
bLit. “to make the face shine from oil.”oil that makes the face shine,-b
and bread that sustains man’s life.
bLit. “to make the face shine from oil.”oil that makes the face shine,-b
and bread that sustains man’s life.
אֵין אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן?
MISHNA: This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. How does one recite a blessing over fruits? Over different fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine. Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. Over wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruits that grow from the earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread. Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, as over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Over herbs and leafy vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: Who creates various kinds of herbs. GEMARA: Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in the Sifra: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: “…sanctified for praises before the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24). This verse teaches that they require praise of God in the form of a blessing both beforehand and thereafter, as the verse says praises in the plural. From here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing, as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure. The Gemara asks: And did this verse: “Sanctified for praises,” come for that purpose? This verse is necessary to derive other matters. One being that the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it. This midrash interprets hillul, praise, as ḥillul, redemption. And the other matter derived from this verse is: An object which is offered upon the altar and requires a song of praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, requires redemption. And that which does not require a song of praise, all other fruits, does not require redemption. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one only recites a song of praise in the Temple over the libation of wine on the altar? As it is stated: “And the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees?” (Judges 9:13). If wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that one only recites a song of praise over wine, as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other halakhot have been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived? Indeed, this works out well according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year sapling in the mishnayot dealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree’s existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. However, according to the one who taught, as a rule: A fourth-year grapevine, what can be said? Indeed, he derives the halakha that only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of hillul as ḥillul. As it was stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one taught these mishnayot using the term: A fourth-year grapevine, and one taught using the term: A fourth-year sapling. And according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, this works out well if he derives this matter from a verbal analogy [gezera shava], and therefore need not derive this halakha from the term hillulim. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is stated here with regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree’s first three years: “But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, so that it may increase your produce [tevuato]; I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:25). And it is stated below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited with the produce [utevuat] of the vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: Just as below, with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in vineyards; so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in vineyards. Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, one extra hillul remains from which to derive the blessing. Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word hillulim. And if he does not derive this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he must derive this halakha from the term hillulim, in which case, from where does he derive the mitzva to recite a blessing before partaking of food? And even if he derives this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing after eating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” However, from where is it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing beforehand? From one hillul, the fundamental halakha of redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived. The Gemara answers this: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so that he is obligated to recite a blessing over food. The Gemara comments: In that way, we found a source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of vineyards, but from where is it derived with regard to other types of produce? The Gemara responds: It is derived by means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, from the produce of a vineyard: Just as the fruit of the vineyard is an item from which one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing. The Gemara rejects this proof: This derivation can be refuted, as a vineyard is unique: What is unique about a vineyard, that it is obligated in the mitzva requiring to give small, incomplete clusters of grapes [olelot] to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes. The Gemara answers: In that case, standing grain can prove that the halakha of olelot is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the halakha of olelot does not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: What is unique about ripe grain, that it is obligated in the mitzva of separating ḥalla from the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain. The Gemara responds: In that regard, vineyards can prove that the halakha of ḥalla is not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is: Both are items from which one derives benefit and each requires a blessing. A general principle may be derived: So too, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing. Again, the Gemara objects: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain have an aspect of being offered upon the altar, and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, an olive may also be derived as it too has an aspect of being offered upon the altar, as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering. The Gemara questions this point: Is an olive derived from the fact that it has an aspect of being offered upon the altar? Isn’t it written explicitly with regard to the olive listed that the orchard in which it grows is called kerem; as it is written: “And burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [kerem zayit]” (Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called kerem, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a kerem and should require a blessing. Rav Pappa said: Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows is called kerem zayit, it is not called kerem unmodified, which is a term reserved for grapevines. The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that in any case, it is difficult: What is unique about the common denominator between grapes and grain? That they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Rather, it is derived from the obligation to recite a blessing upon the seven species. After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: Just as the seven species are items from which one derives benefit and require a blessing, any item from which one derives benefit, requires a blessing. Again, the Gemara rejects this: What is unique about the seven species? That one is obligated in the mitzva of first fruits. However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? Furthermore, even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, this works out well with regard to the blessing thereafter; but from where is the obligation to recite a blessing beforehand derived? The Gemara responds to the question: This is not difficult, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If when he is satiated, after eating, he is obligated to recite a blessing over food, when he is hungry, before eating, all the more so he is obligated to recite a blessing over food. In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even according to the one who taught: A fourth-year sapling in all the relevant mishnayot, it works out well with regard to everything that can be planted, that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to items that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does he derive the halakha that one is obligated to recite a blessing? Rather, all previous attempts at deriving this halakha are rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on reason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world, which is the property of God, without reciting a blessing beforehand. And anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he is guilty of misuse of a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: What is his remedy? He should go to a Sage. The Gemara is puzzled: He should go to a Sage; what will he do to him? How can the Sage help after he has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said, this is how it should be understood: He should go to a Sage initially, in his youth, and the Sage will teach him blessings, so that he will not come to be guilty of this type of misuse of a consecrated object in the future. Similarly, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s, the world and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is written elsewhere: “The heavens are the Lord’s and the earth He has given over to mankind” (Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that says that the earth is the Lord’s refers to the situation before a blessing is recited,
זוהר: קפט:ב
אין קדושה אלא ביין ואין ברכה אלא ביין.
אין קדושה אלא ביין ואין ברכה אלא ביין.
תַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״, וְכִי בְּאֵיזֶה נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן.
is in a case where he is sitting in a boat. The traveler must be concerned about his food supply, but he need not worry that the jostling of the road might force him to exert himself, which has a tendency to cause digestive problems. Alternatively, the practical difference is in a case where he is traveling from station [avna] to station. Here the exertion of the road might cause digestive problems, but one need not be concerned about running out of food, as he can resupply along the way. The Gemara relates that when Rav Pappa traveled, along each and every parasang he would eat one loaf of bread. Rav Pappa did so because he maintained that the prohibition was due to the bowels, and as he was healthy he was not concerned that travel by road would irritate his digestion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who has food for himself but nevertheless starves himself in years of famine will be saved from an unusual death, as it is stated: “In famine, He will redeem you from death” (Job 5:20). This is derived from the precise wording of the verse. According to its straightforward meaning, instead of “in famine,” it should have said: From famine, as one is delivered from famine. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: As a reward for starving himself in years of famine, Job will be saved from an unusual death. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: It is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine, so that children not be born during these difficult years. As it is stated: “And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came” (Genesis 41:50). It was taught in a baraita: Nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine, as they must strive to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Likewise, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the Jewish people is immersed in distress, and one of them separates himself from the community and does not share their suffering, the two ministering angels who accompany a person come and place their hands on his head, as though he was an offering, and say: This man, so-and-so, who has separated himself from the community, let him not see the consolation of the community. A similar idea is taught in another baraita: When the community is immersed in suffering, a person may not say: I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul. And if he does so, the verse says about him: “And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine; let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die” (Isaiah 22:13). And the prophecy continues with what is written afterward, in the following verse: “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die” (Isaiah 22:14). The baraita comments: Up to this point is the attribute of middling people, who merely exclude themselves from the suffering of the community. However, with regard to the attribute of wicked people, what is written about those who hope for more of these days? “Come, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant” (Isaiah 56:12). And what is written afterward? “The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1). This verse teaches that righteous people suffer early death to prevent them from witnessing the harm that will befall these evil people. The baraita continues: Rather, a person should be distressed together with the community. As we found with Moses our teacher that he was distressed together with the community, as it is stated during the war with Amalek: “But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat upon it” (Exodus 17:12). But didn’t Moses have one pillow or one cushion to sit upon; why was he forced to sit on a rock? Rather, Moses said as follows: Since the Jewish people are immersed in suffering, I too will be with them in suffering, as much as I am able, although I am not participating in the fighting. The baraita adds: And anyone who is distressed together with the community will merit seeing the consolation of the community. The baraita further states: And lest a person say, I have acted in secret; who will testify against me on the Day of Judgment? The tanna explains that the stones of a person’s house and the beams of a person’s house will testify against him, as it is stated: “For a stone shall cry out from the wall, and a beam out of the timber shall answer it” (Habakkuk 2:11). In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: The two ministering angels who accompany a person will testify against him, as it is stated: “For He will give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways” (Psalms 91:11). Rabbi Ḥidka said: A person’s soul will testify against him, as it is stated: “Keep the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom” (Micah 7:5). And some say: A man’s limbs will testify against him, as it is stated: “You are My witnesses, says the Lord” (Isaiah 43:10). The baraita cites another verse that deals with judgment. “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, He is just and righteous” (Deuteronomy 32:4). The baraita interprets “a God of faithfulness” to mean that just as punishment is exacted from the wicked in the World-to-Come even for a light transgression that they commit, so too, punishment is exacted from the righteous in this world for a light transgression that they commit. The righteous suffer their punishment in this world to purify them so they can enjoy the World-to-Come. The baraita turns to the second section of the verse: “And without iniquity.” This teaches that just as reward is paid to the righteous in the World-to-Come even for a minor mitzva that they fulfill, so too, reward is paid to the wicked in this world for even a minor mitzva that they fulfill, to give the wicked all the reward they deserve for the performance of mitzvot in this world, and deprive them of any share in the World-to-Come. With regard to the third section of the verse: “He is just and righteous,” the Sages said: At the hour of a person’s departure to his eternal home, all his deeds are enumerated before him and are rendered visible to him once again, and the deeds themselves say to him: You did such and such, in such and such a place, on such and such a day, and he says: Yes, that is exactly what happened. And they say to him: Sign a statement that this is correct, and he signs it, as it is stated: “He makes the hand of every man sign” (Job 37:7). And not only that, but after one has been shown all his deeds, he justifies the judgment upon himself, and says to them: You have judged me well. This response serves to fulfill that which is stated: “That You may be justified when You speak and be right when You judge” (Psalms 51:6). § The Gemara returns to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner. Conversely, Rabbi Elazar says: One who accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred, as it is stated with regard to the nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, one can apply an a fortiori inference: And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining from only one matter, wine, is nevertheless called sacred, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from every matter, all the more so should he be considered sacred. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, the nazirite is indeed called sacred, as stated by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the sanctity of the growth of the locks, as the nazirite’s hair does possess an element of sanctity, but it does not refer to the nazirite himself. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the nazirite is called a sinner. The Gemara answers: That verse refers specifically to a nazirite who rendered himself ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead body, an act that is prohibited for him. This particular nazirite must bring an offering to atone “for that he sinned by the soul.” The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that fasting is a virtuous act? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A person should always consider himself
סנהדרין: ע: אמר רבא חמרא וריחני פקחין
The Danger of Drunkenness
Can you think of any biblical stories involving wine?
How do they turn out?
How do they turn out?
א"ר חנן לא נברא יין בעולם אלא לנחם אבלים ולשלם שכר לרשעים רב עמרם בריה דר"ש בר אבא י"ג ווי"ן נאמרו ביין (בראשית ט, כ) ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם וישת מן היין וישכר ויתגל בתוך אהלו וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה וישימו על שכם שניהם וילכו אחורנית ויכסו את ערות אביהם ופניהם וגו' וייקץ נח מיינו וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן
§ The Gemara’s discussion turns to wine in general. Rav Ḥanan says: Wine was created in the world only to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so that they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” is referring to the wicked, who will perish from this world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31)? Look not upon wine that reddens the faces of the wicked in this world when they drink it, and whitens their faces, i.e., embarrasses them, in the World-to-Come. Rava says that this is how the verse should be understood: “Look not upon wine that reddens [yitaddam]” means: Look not upon wine, as it leads to bloodshed [dam], indicating that one who drinks wine will end up committing an act of killing or will be killed because of it. Rav Kahana raises a contradiction: The verse states: “Therefore, they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow to the bounty of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd” (Jeremiah 31:11). The word for wine is written tirash, without the letter vav, but we read it as tirosh, with the letter vav. The matter can explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount he becomes a leader [rosh], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively he becomes poor [rash]. Rava raises a similar contradiction: It is written: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). The word for gladdens could be read as yeshamaḥ, meaning that wine makes one crazy, but we read it as yesamaḥ, gladdens the heart. The matter can be explained as follows: If one merits and drinks a moderate amount the wine gladdens him [mesameḥo], whereas if he does not merit and drinks excessively it makes him crazy [meshamemehu]. And that is what Rava meant when he said: Wine and fragrant spices have made me wise; that is to say, the controlled drinking of wine is beneficial to the drinker. Rav Amram, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who cries, Woe? Who cries, Alas? Who has quarrels? Who has complaints? Who has causeless injuries? Who has redness of eyes? They who tarry long at the wine, they who go to seek mixed wine” (Proverbs 23:29–30)? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that one who interprets this verse from the beginning to the end interprets it in a way that has meaning and significance. And also one who interprets it from the end to the beginning interprets it in a meaningful manner. It is possible to interpret these verses from the beginning to the end and say: Woe and alas to one who drinks wine; and it is also possible to interpret them from the end to the beginning: Who drinks wine? He who has quarrels, complaints, and injuries. A visitor from the Galilee expounded: The conversive vav is stated thirteen times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated: “And Noah began [vayyaḥel] to be a farmer, and he planted [vayyita] a vineyard, and he drank [vayyesht] of the wine, and was drunk [vayyishkar]; and he was uncovered [vayyitgal] within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw [vayyar] the nakedness of his father, and told [vayyagged] his two brothers outside. And Shem and Japheth took [vayyikaḥ] the garment, and laid it [vayyasimu] upon both their shoulders, and went [vayyelekhu] backward, and covered [vaykhassu] the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke [vayyiketz] from his wine, and knew [vayyeda] what his younger son had done to him” (Genesis 9:20–24). All thirteen instances of the conversive vav here are followed by the letter yod. Together they form the word vay, meaning woe, and allude to the suffering and misfortune caused by uncontrolled drinking.
(ו) הַשֹּׁתִ֤ים בְּמִזְרְקֵי֙ יַ֔יִן וְרֵאשִׁ֥ית שְׁמָנִ֖ים יִמְשָׁ֑חוּ וְלֹ֥א נֶחְל֖וּ עַל־שֵׁ֥בֶר יוֹסֵֽף׃ (ז) לָכֵ֛ן עַתָּ֥ה יִגְל֖וּ בְּרֹ֣אשׁ גֹּלִ֑ים וְסָ֖ר מִרְזַ֥ח סְרוּחִֽים׃
(6) They drink [straight] from the wine bowls
And anoint themselves with the choicest oils—
But they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph. (7) Assuredly, right soon
They shall head the column of exiles;
They shall loll no more at festive meals.
And anoint themselves with the choicest oils—
But they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph. (7) Assuredly, right soon
They shall head the column of exiles;
They shall loll no more at festive meals.
סנהדרין ע
רב כהנא רמי כתיב תירש וקרינן תירוש זכה נעשה ראש לא זכה נעשה רש רבא רמי כתיב (תהלים קד, לא) ישמח וקרינן ישמח זכה משמחו לא זכה משממהו
רב כהנא רמי כתיב תירש וקרינן תירוש זכה נעשה ראש לא זכה נעשה רש רבא רמי כתיב (תהלים קד, לא) ישמח וקרינן ישמח זכה משמחו לא זכה משממהו