ברכות דף נב

ורבי יהושע היא, דאמר: אין משגיחין בבת קול.

and this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

וסברי בית שמאי דברכת היום עדיפא? והתניא: הנכנס לביתו במוצאי שבת, מברך על היין ועל המאור ועל הבשמים, ואחר כך אומר הבדלה. ואם אין לו אלא כוס אחד,

As to the substance of these statements, the Gemara asks: Do Beit Shammai hold that the blessing over the day takes precedence? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who enters his house at the conclusion of Shabbat recites a blessing over the wine, then over the candle, then over the spices, and recites havdala thereafter? And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala and the blessing over wine together thereafter. Evidently, the blessing over wine precedes the primary havdala blessing.

מניחו לאחר המזון ומשלשלן כולן לאחריו.

והא, ממאי דבית שמאי היא? דלמא בית הלל היא?!

The Gemara asks: And this baraita, from where is it ascertained that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai’s opinion cannot be challenged with an unattributed baraita.

לא סלקא דעתך, דקתני מאור ואחר כך בשמים, ומאן שמעת ליה דאית ליה האי סברא — בית שמאי, דתניא אמר רבי יהודה:

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as it was taught at the beginning of the baraita: Light and spices thereafter. And who, did you hear, adopts that reasoning? Beit Shammai. As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute that Grace after Meals is recited first and that havdala is recited last. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to the blessings recited in the middle of havdala, the blessings over the light and over the spices. Beit Shammai say: Light and spices thereafter; and Beit Hillel say: Spices and light thereafter. Therefore, the baraita, where it is taught that the blessing over the candle precedes the blessing over the spices, must be according to Beit Shammai and it says that wine precedes havdala.

לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על המזון שבתחלה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף, על מה נחלקו — על המאור ועל הבשמים. בית שמאי אומרים: מאור ואחר כך בשמים,

ובית הלל אומרים: בשמים ואחר כך מאור.

וממאי דבית שמאי היא ואליבא דרבי יהודה, דילמא בית הלל היא ואליבא דרבי מאיר?!

The Gemara presents another challenge: And from where do you ascertain that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps it is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir.

לא סלקא דעתך, דקתני הכא במתניתין, בית שמאי אומרים: נר ומזון בשמים והבדלה, ובית הלל אומרים: נר ובשמים מזון והבדלה,

The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir. As it was taught here in the mishna, which like all unattributed mishnayot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. And there, in the baraita, it was taught: And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala, and the blessing over wine together thereafter. According to the baraita, all of the blessings follow Grace after Meals. Since the baraita and the mishna do not correspond, conclude from here that the baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda.

והתם בברייתא קתני אם אין לו אלא כוס אחד, מניחו לאחר המזון, ומשלשלן כולן לאחריו. שמע מינה דבית שמאי היא ואליבא דרבי יהודה.

ומכל מקום קשיא. קא סברי בית שמאי שאני עיולי יומא מאפוקי יומא. עיולי יומא, כמה דמקדמינן ליה עדיף. אפוקי יומא, כמה דמאחרינן ליה עדיף,

And, nevertheless, after the Gemara has proven that the baraita corresponds to the opinion of Beit Shammai as interpreted by Rabbi Yehuda, the contradiction between Beit Shammai’s statement in the baraita and their statement in the Tosefta is difficult. The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that the arrival of the day of Shabbat or a Festival is different from the departure of the day. As with regard to the arrival of the day, the more that we can advance it, the better; with regard to the departure of the day, the more we postpone it, the better, so that Shabbat should not be like a burden to us. Consequently, although Beit Shammai situate kiddush before the blessing over the wine, they agree that one should recite havdala after the blessing over the wine.

כי היכי דלא להוי עלן כמשוי.

וסברי בית שמאי ברכת המזון טעונה כוס? והא תנן: בא להם יין לאחר המזון, אם אין שם אלא אותו כוס, בית שמאי אומרים:

The above discussion referred to Beit Shammai’s opinion with regard to Grace after Meals recited over a cup of wine. The Gemara poses the question: And do Beit Shammai hold that Grace after Meals requires a cup of wine? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Wine came before the diners after the meal; if only that cup of wine is there, Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the food, Grace after Meals, thereafter. What? Is it not that he recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, leaving Grace after Meals without wine? The Gemara rejects this: No. The mishna means that he recites a blessing over the cup of wine and leaves it to drink from it after Grace after Meals.

מברך על היין ואחר כך מברך על המזון, מאי לאו דמברך עילויה ושתי ליה? לא, דמברך עילויה ומנח ליה.

והאמר מר המברך צריך שיטעום! — דטעים ליה. והאמר מר טעמו פגמו! — דטעים ליה בידיה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t the Master say that one who recites a blessing is required to taste? The Gemara answers: Indeed, this refers to a case where he tasted it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t the Master say that one who tasted the cup of wine disqualified it and it is no longer suitable to be used for a cup of blessing? The Gemara answers: This does not refer to a case where he drank the wine; but rather, where he tasted it with his hand or poured a bit into another cup and drank from it.

והאמר מר כוס של ברכה צריך שעור, והא קא פחית ליה משיעוריה! — דנפיש ליה טפי משיעוריה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t the Master say: A cup of blessing requires a minimum measure of wine? By drinking the wine, doesn’t he diminish the cup from containing its minimum measure? The Gemara answers: This refers to a case where the cup contained more than the required measure of wine.

והא אם אין שם אלא אותו כוס קתני! — תרי לא הוי ומחד נפיש.

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught explicitly: If he has only one cup of wine? If there is more than the required measure of wine, he does not have only one cup. The Gemara responds: Indeed, there are not two cups, but there is more than one.

והא תני רבי חייא: בית שמאי אומרים מברך על היין ושותהו ואחר כך מברך ברכת המזון! אלא תרי תנאי, ואליבא דבית שמאי.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: He recites a blessing over the wine and drinks it, and recites Grace after Meals thereafter? Evidently, according to Beit Shammai, wine is not required for Grace after Meals. Rather, it must be that two tanna’im hold in accordance with Beit Shammai and differ with regard to their opinion.

בית שמאי אומרים וכו׳.

We learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over whether the washing of the hands or mixing water with the wine takes precedence. Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter.

תנו רבנן, בית שמאי אומרים: נוטלין לידים ואחר כך מוזגין את הכוס, שאם אתה אומר מוזגין את הכוס תחלה, גזרה שמא יטמאו משקין שאחורי הכוס מחמת ידיו,

The Sages taught a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, as if you say that one mixes water with the wine in the cup first, his hands will remain ritually impure, as the Sages decreed that unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status as if they touched something rendered ritually impure by a creeping animal. Consequently, there is room for concern that the liquid that inevitably drips on the outside of the cup might become ritually impure due to his hands, and those liquids will in turn render the cup ritually impure. Consequently, Beit Shammai said that the hands must be washed first in order to prevent that result.

ויחזרו ויטמאו את הכוס.

וליטמו ידים לכוס!

The Gemara asks: If the concern is with regard to ritual impurity to the cup, why mention the liquids on the outside of the cup? Let his hands render the cup ritually impure directly.

ידים שניות הן, ואין שני עושה שלישי בחולין אלא על ידי משקין.

The Gemara answers: Hands have second degree ritual impurity status, and there is a general halakhic principle that an object of second degree ritual impurity status cannot confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items, as opposed to teruma or consecrated food, except by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

ובית הלל אומרים: מוזגין את הכוס ואחר כך נוטלין לידים. שאם אתה אומר נוטלין לידים תחלה, גזרה שמא יטמאו משקין שבידים מחמת הכוס, ויחזרו ויטמאו את הידים.

And Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, there is a decree lest the liquid from the outside of the cup that dampened one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup which is liable to be impure, and the liquid will in turn render his hands ritually impure.

וניטמי כוס לידים! — אין כלי מטמא אדם.

The Gemara asks: Let the cup render his hands ritually impure directly, without any liquid? The Gemara responds that, according to a general principle in the halakhot of ritual impurity, a vessel does not render a person ritually impure. The cup alone does not render his hands ritually impure.

וניטמי למשקין שבתוכו! — הכא בכלי שנטמאו אחוריו במשקין עסקינן, דתוכו טהור וגבו טמא. דתנן: כלי שנטמאו אחוריו במשקין אחוריו טמאים

The Gemara asks: If the back of the cup is ritually impure, let it render the liquids that are within the cup ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a vessel that only the outside of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. In that case, the inside of the cup is pure and the outside is impure. As we learned in a mishna: A vessel whose outer side is rendered ritually impure by liquid, only the outer side of the vessel is impure,

תוכו ואוגנו ואזנו וידיו טהורין. נטמא תוכו — נטמא כולו.

while its inner side, and its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, and its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handles are pure. However, if the inside of the vessel became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure.

במאי קא מיפלגי?

Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties. The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? What is the crux of their dispute?

בית שמאי סברי אסור להשתמש בכלי שנטמאו אחוריו במשקין, גזרה משום ניצוצות. וליכא למגזר שמא יטמאו המשקין שבידים בכוס.

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids. This prohibition stems from a decree of the Sages, due to concern for drips of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel. And Beit Shammai hold that there is no reason to issue a decree due to the concern of Beit Hillel lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited.

ובית הלל סברי מותר להשתמש בכלי שנטמאו אחוריו במשקין, אמרי ניצוצות לא שכיחי, ואיכא למיחש שמא יטמאו משקין שבידים מחמת הכוס.

And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid, as they say: Drips are uncommon, and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case. Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, there is concern lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup.

דבר אחר: תכף לנטילת ידים סעודה.

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal. Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal.

מאי ״דבר אחר״? הכי קאמרי להו בית הלל לבית שמאי: לדידכו דאמריתו אסור להשתמש בכלי שאחוריו טמאין דגזרינן משום ניצוצות, אפילו הכי הא עדיפא, דתכף לנטילת ידים סעודה.

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Even according to you, who said that it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to concern for drips, even so, our opinion is preferable to yours, as our opinion adheres to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal.

בית שמאי אומרים מקנח וכו׳.

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed. Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting.

תנו רבנן: בית שמאי אומרים: מקנח ידיו במפה ומניחה על השלחן. שאם אתה אומר על הכסת, גזרה שמא יטמאו משקין שבמפה מחמת הכסת, ויחזרו ויטמאו את הידים.

In a Tosefta, the Sages taught in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say that he should place the cloth on the cushion, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the cloth, which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, become ritually impure due to their contact with the cushion, and the liquids would in turn render the hands of anyone who touches the towel ritually impure.

ונטמייה כסת למפה! — אין כלי מטמא כלי.

The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, let the cushion render the towel ritually impure directly? The Gemara answers: There is a principle: A vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure.

ונטמייה כסת לגברא גופיה! — אין כלי מטמא אדם.

The Gemara asks: Let the cushion render the man sitting upon it ritually impure. The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: A vessel does not render a person ritually impure.

ובית הלל אומרים: על הכסת. שאם אתה אומר על השלחן, גזרה שמא יטמאו משקין שבמפה מחמת השולחן ויחזרו ויטמאו את האוכלין.

And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting, as if you say that he should place it on the table, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure by their contact with the table, and those liquids in turn will render the food placed on the table ritually impure.

ולטמא שלחן לאוכלין שבתוכו! — הכא בשלחן שני עסקינן, ואין שני עושה שלישי בחולין אלא על ידי משקין.

The Gemara asks: Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure directly. The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and an object of second degree ritual impurity status can only confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.

במאי קמיפלגי? בית שמאי סברי אסור להשתמש בשלחן שני, גזרה משום אוכלי תרומה.

The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of a decree due to those who eat teruma. A table with that status renders teruma ritually impure through contact. To prevent priests who partake of teruma from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods.

ובית הלל סברי מותר להשתמש בשלחן שני, אוכלי תרומה זריזין הם.

And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests. As those who eat teruma are vigilant and would ascertain the status of a table before eating.

דבר אחר: אין נטילת ידים לחולין מן התורה.

Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.

מאי ״דבר אחר״? הכי קאמרי להו בית הלל לבית שמאי: וכי תימרו מאי שנא גבי אוכלין דחיישינן ומאי שנא גבי ידים דלא חיישינן? אפילו הכי הא עדיפא,

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion? Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that even so, this is preferable, as there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. It is preferable that hands, whose impurity has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure with second degree ritual impurity status, and food, whose impurity has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure.

דאין נטילת ידים לחולין מן התורה. מוטב שיטמאו ידים דלית להו עיקר מדאורייתא, ואל יטמאו אוכלים דאית להו עיקר מדאורייתא.

בית שמאי אומרים מכבדין וכו׳.

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one’s hands should be performed first after the meal. Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter.

תנו רבנן: בית שמאי אומרים מכבדין את הבית ואחר כך נוטלין לידים, שאם אתה אומר נוטלין לידים תחלה, נמצא אתה מפסיד את האוכלין.

The Sages taught in a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and you will have ruined the food. But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first. What is the reason? Due to concern, lest the crumbs will be made disgusting.

אבל נטילת ידים לבית שמאי תחלה לא סבירא להו. מאי טעמא? — משום פירורין.

ובית הלל אומרים: אם שמש תלמיד חכם הוא, נוטל פירורין שיש בהם כזית, ומניח פירורין שאין בהן כזית.

And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar, he removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk from the table at the end of the meal and leaves only crumbs that are not an olive-bulk, as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it.

מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן. דאמר רבי יוחנן: פירורין שאין בהם כזית — מותר לאבדן ביד.

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk in size, one may destroy them with his hand without violating the prohibition against ruining food.

במאי קמיפלגי? בית הלל סברי אסור להשתמש בשמש עם הארץ. ובית שמאי סברי מותר להשתמש בשמש עם הארץ.

Here too the Gemara poses the question: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use the services of a waiter who is an am ha’aretz. Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table. And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use the services of an attendant who is an am ha’aretz. Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined. The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one’s hands.

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר רב הונא: בכוליה פרקין הלכה כבית הלל, בר מהא דהלכה כבית שמאי, ורבי אושעיא מתני איפכא, ובהא נמי הלכה כבית הלל.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, except for this case, where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, and in this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

בית שמאי אומרים: נר ומזון וכו׳.

We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala.

רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי רבא. חזייה לרבא דבריך אבשמים ברישא. אמר ליה: מכדי בית שמאי ובית הלל אמאור לא פליגי,

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava’s house. He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to the blessing over light, as we learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, and spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala, why did you recite the blessing over the spices first?

דתניא בית שמאי אומרים: נר ומזון, בשמים והבדלה. ובית הלל אומרים: נר ובשמים, מזון והבדלה!

עני רבא בתריה: זו דברי רבי מאיר, אבל רבי יהודה אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על המזון שהוא בתחילה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף,

Rava answered after him: Indeed, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to Grace after Meals that it is recited first, nor with regard to havdala, which is recited last. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the light and the spices. Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over spices and over light thereafter.

על מה נחלקו — על המאור ועל הבשמים, שבית שמאי אומרים על המאור ואחר כך בשמים, ובית הלל אומרים בשמים ואחר כך מאור.

ואמר רבי יוחנן נהגו העם כבית הלל אליבא דרבי יהודה.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda. The blessing over the spices is recited first.

בית שמאי אומרים שברא כו׳.

The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala. Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire.

אמר רבא: ב״ברא״ כולי עלמא לא פליגי דברא משמע. כי פליגי ב״בורא״, בית שמאי סברי ״בורא״ דעתיד למברא, ובית הלל סברי ״בורא״ נמי דברא משמע.

Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past. Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh. Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past.

מתיב רב יוסף: ״יוצר אור ובורא חשך״, ״יוצר הרים ובורא רוח״, ״בורא השמים ונוטיהם״. אלא אמר רב יוסף: ב״ברא״ ו״בורא״ כולי עלמא לא פליגי דברא משמע,

Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: “Who forms light and creates [boreh] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7), “Who forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind” (Amos 4:13), or “Who creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5). Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire. As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.

כי פליגי ב״מאור״ ו״מאורי״. דבית שמאי סברי חדא נהורא איכא בנורא, ובית הלל סברי טובא נהורי איכא בנורא. תניא נמי הכי, אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי:

הרבה מאורות יש באור.

אין מברכין כו׳. בשלמא נר משום דלא שבת, אלא בשמים מה טעם לא?

We learned in the mishna that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles. The Gemara asks: Granted, the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over a candle of gentiles in havdala, as the flame of the candle did not rest. Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, what is the reason that one may not recite a blessing over spices of gentiles?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: הכא במסבת גוים עסקינן, מפני שסתם מסבת גוים לעבודה זרה היא.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party arranged by gentiles and the spices used at that party were prohibited because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry.

הא מדקתני סיפא אין מברכין לא על הנר ולא על הבשמים של עבודה זרה, מכלל דרישא לאו בעבודה זרה עסקינן!

The Gemara asks: But from that which was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry, infer by implication that in the first clause of our mishna we are not dealing with idolatry? There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited.

אמר רבי חנינא מסורא: ״מה טעם״ קאמר: מה טעם אין מברכין על הנר ולא על הבשמים של גוים — מפני שסתם מסבת גוים לעבודה זרה.

Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: These two halakhot are complementary, and the mishna states the halakha employing the style of: What is the reason. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles? Because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry.

תנו רבנן: אור ששבת — מברכין עליו, ושלא שבת — אין מברכין עליו. מאי ״שבת״ ומאי ״לא שבת״?

The Sages taught in a baraita: Over fire that rested, one may recite a blessing in havdala, and over fire that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What is meant by rested, and what is meant by did not rest?ב