meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Commentary/Tosafot/Seder Zeraim/Tosafot on Berakhot/English/Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler..txt"}
text: Tosafot on Berakhot
  תוספות על ברכות
  Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.
  
  
  Tosafot on Berakhot
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  FROM WHEN DOES ONE RECITE SHEMA ETC? All opinions mentioned in our Mishna agree that Shema is to be recited after the stars are visible. It was the common custom during Rashi’s times that people prayed Maariv before nightfall. In view of what is clearly stated in the Mishna, how can we defend the custom?Rashi explained: And how do we recite Shema when it is still daytime and do not wait until the stars come out, as the Gemara explains that this is the time when Kohanim begin come to eat their Terumah? For this reason Rashi explains that the Shema that is recited when we go to bed is the primary fulfillment of the mitzvah of Shema, and that is recited after the stars appear.Rashi quotes Talmud Yerushalmi to support his opinion. So is it found in Yerushalmi: If one recited Shema before this time mentioned in our Mishna, he has not fulfilled his obligation.Yerushalmi continues: If so, why do we recite Shema in the synagogue, when we are saying the Marriv prayer before the stars appear and when we are definitely not fulfilling the mitzvah? That is done in order to stand before Hashem in prayer having first said some words of Torah. That first recital is not a fulfillment of the mitzvah of reciting Shema, but does serve as a vehicle from which we stand before Hashem in prayer, having fulfilled the all-important mitzvah of Torah study.Tosfos asks a series of four questions attacking Rashi’s explanation: The first: His explanation that we fulfill the reciting of Shema with the Shema that we recite when going to sleep is bewildering! But the people, when going to sleep are accustomed to reciting only the first paragraph of Shema - שמע and ואהבת, and if so, that it is the recital with which we will fulfill our obligation to recite Shema, we should read all three paragraphs?The second question: There is another difficulty. That one is required when reciting Shema to also recite two berachos before Shema and two berachos after Shema at night? Tosfos assumes that the berachos of Shema should be recited with the Shema that is recited for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. According to Rashi, this should be recited when we are about to go to sleep, but in reality the berachos of Shema are recited together with the early Maariv prayer?The third question: Furthermore, the Shema recited when one goes to bed is only because of the mazikin1<i class="footnote">Evil spirits that may attack a person while he is asleep.</i> as [the Gemara] soon says (5a). The Gemara there also says and if he is a scholar he does not need to recite Shema when he goes to sleep. This is understandable if the purpose of that Shema is to protect one from mazikin. Presumably a scholar who is always learning does not need that protection. However, if the recital is in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Shema, scholars are also obligated to fulfill the mitzvah.On 4b there is a dispute between R’ Yochonon and R’ Yehoshua ben Levi about the proper order of reciting Shema and saying Maariv. R’ Yochonon holds as we do that reciting Shema is first followed by tefilas Maariv. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees. He holds that we first say tefilas Maariv and then recite Shema. The particulars of the disagreement are discussed later on 4b.The fourth question: There is another difficulty: For if so, that Rashi is correct and we fulfill the mitzvah of reciting Shema when we go to bed after tefilas Maariv, we are ruling in favor of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi who says that the prayers of Shacharis, Mincha and Maariv were instituted to be said in between. The explanation of in between: Between the two recitals of Shema , all prayers are to be said between reciting Shema in the morning and reciting Shema in the evening.However, we rule in accordance with R’ Yochonon who says later (4b): Who is a son of the world to come? One who recites the beracha of redemption, גאל ישראל of the Maariv prayers immediately before the Shemoneh Esrai of Maariv. The beracha of גאל ישראל together with the other berachos recited in the evening prayers are collectively called the berachos of Shema. When we recite the Shema before Shmoneh Esrai of Maariv the beracha of redemption is said before Shmoneh Esrai, thus we are fulfilling the dictum of R’ Yochonon who says that one who does this is worthy of the world to come. If we would recite Shema after Shmoneh Esrai we would not be fulfilling R’ Yochonon’s dictum. This is proof that Shema is meant to be recited before Shema, which contradicts Rashi’s position that we actually fulfill the recital of Shema when saying it as we are about to go to sleep. Rashi’s proposal seems to be in line with R’ Yehoshua ben Levi.For this reason Rabainu Tam explains that to the contrary, the recital of Shema in the synagogue before Shmoneh Esrai is the primary recital. This decision requires that we must once again examine our custom to recite Shema together with tefilas Maariv before nightfall. If you ask: How do we recite Shema so early when it is still day? We can answer: That we rule in accordance with R’ Yehudah who says in Perek Tefilas Hashachar (26a) that the time for tefilas Minchah is till the midpoint of the Minchah period, which is ten and three quarter hours into the hours of the day. For example when sunrise and sunset are at 6 o’clock a.m. and p.m., ten and three quarter hours is at 4:45 p.m. Immediately after the end of the time for praying Minchah at 4:45 p.m., the time for tefilas Maariv begins. Since this is the time for tefilas Maariv we may assume that it is also the time for recital of Shema, which must be done before saying tefilas Maariv as discussed earlier.In reality during the times of Tosfos people usually said Minchah late in the day, even after the midpoint of the minchah. If you ask: Since we rely on R’ Yehudah for reciting Shema before nightfall, how do we pray tefilas Minchah close to nightfall and even after the midpoint of the minchah? We can answer: That we rule in accordance with the Rabonon who say that tefilas Minchah may be said until the evening. [The Gemara] says later (27a): Now that we have not learned that the halacha follows the Rabonon who hold one may pray Minchah after the midpoint of the minchah (4:45 p.m.) or that the halacha follows R’ Yehuda who says that Mincha must be prayed before the midpoint (4:45 p.m.), one who does as [the Rabonon] fulfills his obligation and one who does like [R’ Yehudah] has fulfilled his obligation. This halacha has been left open for all to choose how they wish to behave. Thus one may choose to say Mincha after 4:45 p.m. or choose to say Mincha before 4:45 p.m. and then say Maariv immediately after 4:45 p.m. before night fall. Those of us who wish to follow the Rabonon may do so and those of us who choose to follow R’ Yehudah may do so. At this point Tosfos seems to hold that when we choose to pray Maariv at 4:45 p.m., we may also fulfill our obligation to recite Shema at that time.In reality it seems that during Tosfos’ times people would say tefilas Minchah after 4:45 p.m. and then recite Shema and say tefilas Maariv. There seems to be a contradiction in using the same time period for both tefilas Mincha and Maariv. In any case there is a difficulty with our custom because it seems that we are practicing two leniencies that are contradictory, because for whatever reason we pray Maariv immediately after the midpoint of the Minchah (after 4:45 p.m.), must be because we rule that the time for praying Minchah has ended in accordance with R’ Yehudah, and immediately afterwards is the time for Maariv , but as far as the time praying Minchah itself is concerned, we do not rule like R’ Yehudah, rather like the Rabonon, because we do continue to say Minchah prayers after the midpoint of the Minchah (4:45 P.M.).Tosfos concludes that we cannot possibly say that the reason we say Maariv early is because we hold like R’ Yehudah, because in fact we do not hold like R’ Yehudah as is evident by our saying Minchah after 4:45 P.M. Tosfos must once again search for the rationale behind our custom, which was to recite Shema before the appearance of the stars which is not in accordance with the ruling of our Mishna. We must keep in mind that Tosfos was not satisfied with Rashi’s approach that we fulfill the mitzvah of reciting Shema later when we go to sleep.Therefore R’I says that certainly the recital of Shema that we recite in the Synagogue is the primary recital of Shema with which we fulfill our obligation, not the Shema we recite as we go to sleep. And we who say Maariv prayers while it is still day before the appearance of the stars, that is because we hold like those Tanoim mentioned in the Gemara (2b) who say that the correct time to recite Shema is at the time that the day is sanctified on Shabos, which is well before the appearance of the stars.Tosfos also refers to another opinion mentioned on 2b, which was well before the appearance of the stars. The Gemara on 2b mentions another time that is earlier than the appearance of the stars, also from the time that people enter to recline and eat their meal which refers to the Shabos meal. That was while it was still day. From that time on is the time for saying Maariv prayers, which include the recital of Shema.There is also proof from the Gemara later on 27a, that Rav prayed the tefilah of Shabos on the eve of Shabos and most probably he also recited Shema at that time. This too seems to indicate that we rule that the correct time to recite Shema is not like our Mishna, which says that the time is the appearance of the stars, but rather sometime earlier. From all those proofs it seems that the recital of Shema in the synagogue is the primary recital and that is for the purpose of fulfilling our obligation to recite Shema. The recital at the time we go to sleep is not for the purpose of fulfilling our obligation, rather to ward off evil spirits.But how will Tosfos deal with Yerushalmi that clearly says that the purpose of reciting Shema in the synagogue is to stand before Hashem in prayer having uttered some words of Torah, but not in order to fulfill the obligation of reciting Shema? That which Yerushalmi says: Why did they recite Shema in the synagogue etc.? [in order to come before Hashem in prayer having uttered words of Torah], which seems to be saying that the recital of Shema in the synagogue is not for the purpose of fulfilling our obligation to say Shema.  Says Rabainu Tam that it was customary for them to recite Shema before they prayed as we customarily recite Ashrey before the Minchah prayer, and that recital of Shema is only in order to come before Hashem in prayer having first said words of Torah. Yerushalmi is not discussing the Shema recited in the Maariv prayer at all. The Shema said before tefilas Maariv is for the purpose of fulfilling one’s obligation.It appears that those who followed Rashi’s opinion that the recital of Shema as we got to sleep is the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah would also say a beracha to the effect that they were fulfilling the commandment to recite Shema. From this it appears that he who recites Shema as he is about to go to bed should not recite a beracha that Hashem commanded us to recite Shema, since he has already fulfilled this mitzvah earlier during Maariv and for the same reason he only needs to recite the first paragraph, that serves to ward off the evil spirits.
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  [THE TANNA] SHOULD FIRST TEACH [US OF THE OBLIGATION TO RECITE KERIAS SHEMA] IN THE MORNING. There must be a reason why the Gemara suggests that the Kerias Shema of the morning should be taught first. Tosfos explains: Just as we find with the daily tamid offerings, where the verse lists the morning tamid first. So too, the Mishna should follow the lead of the Torah and discuss the Kerias Shema obligation of the morning first.
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  IF SO, THE END [OF THE MISHNA] THAT TEACHES [US OF THE BLESSING OF SHEMA] IN THE MORNING FIRST ETC. The Gemara suggested two reasons that the Mishna spoke of the obligation to recite the evening Shema first:A) The verse about the reciting Shema states:  ובשכבך ובקומך - when you lie down and when you arise, putting the evening obligation first.B) The Mishna follows the order of creation‘ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר-there was evening and there was morning’, which speaks of night before day.When the Gemara introduces a question with אי הכי-if so, it indicates that the difficulty is addressed only to the second answer just mentioned, but not to the first answer. The ‘if so’ is saying that according to the first approach A) there is no problem, but according to the second approach just introduced B), there is a problem. Tosfos explains how this works in our Gemara: It is perfectly understandable if you say that the order of the Mishna is based on the verse of “בשכבך-when you lie down”, if that is so, the verse is only particular about reciting Shema but not about the blessings preceding and following recital of Shema.But if you say that the order of the Mishna is based on the verse of creation of the world, then one should be particular to follow this order for all matters including the blessings of Shema.1<i class="footnote">See מהרש"א who raises a very fundamental question: How can Tosfos say that if we follow the verse on creation, we must always follow the order of night before day, when the verse discussing the tamid offering clearly places the morning tamid before the evening tamid? מהרש"א suggests that Tosfos holds that as far as the verse per se is concerned it may sometimes choose to follow one order and at other times follow a different order. The point that Tosfos is making is that if the Tanna chose to follow the order of creation, where night precedes day, the Tanna must be consistent and follow that order in all matters. Proof of this explanation is from the previous Tosfos, where Tosfos says that the Gemara’s question: The Tanna should first teach us about the recital of Shema in the morning is based on the verse that puts the morning tamid first. The Gemara answers: The Tanna is following the order of the verse that deals with reciting Shema, where the evening Shema is mentioned first. The Gemara does not seem to have a problem with the fact that there appears to be a contradiction between the two verses. Obviously, the verse sometimes follows one order and at other times a different order. The Gemara is concerned with discovering the order that the Tanna elected to follow.</i>The Gemara therefore concludes its question: If so, that the Mishna is following the order of creation, the end of the Mishna that teaches etc. [about the blessing of Shema should also begin with the blessings of the morning.]
  [ONE RECITES] TWO BLESSINGS BEFORE [SHEMA] ETC. Tosfos discusses the source for the total of seven berachos recited during the day associated with the Shema.1<i class="footnote">See צל"ח who explains why Tosfos feels the need to explain this issue here, where the Gemara only quoted this Mishna as an aside. Tosfos explanation seems to belong later on 11a, where the Mishna is stated.</i> (Yerushalmi) The seven blessings recited together with Shema, four in the evening2<i class="footnote">המעריב ערבים and אהבת עולם before Shema. אמת ואמונה and השכיבנו after Shema.</i> and three in the morning,3<i class="footnote">יוצר אור and אהבה רבה before Shema. אמת ויציב after Shema.</i> correspond to the verse - I have praised you with seven blessing during the day (Tehilim 119). But we actually recite eight Berachos each day, five during Maariv,4<i class="footnote">We add יראו עינינו after השכיבנו.</i> two before Shema and three afterwards, and three during Shacharis, two before Shema and one afterwards? [The Mishna] does not reckon the Beracha יראו עינינו as an eighth Beracha of this series, because that Beracha was instituted by the Rabanan only so that those of the initial minyan should wait in the synagogue for their fellows who arrived late. It was dangerous to leave the late comers alone in the synagogue. The Rabonon instituted that those already in the synagogue recite this last Beracha, while the late arrivals catch up to the minyan, so that they recite the tefilah and leave together.Is this Beracha for everybody? This Beracha is specifically for their synagogues that were in the field away from the cities, and there is a danger from the evil spirits that harm people who are alone, but in our synagogues that are located within city limits, it is not necessary to wait for their late arriving fellows during the day,5<i class="footnote">These few words of Tosfos are very perplexing. It seems that Tosfos holds that in the synagogues out in the fields one must recite יראו עינינו even during the day and in our synagogues which are within city limits it need only be recited at night. This explanation is hardly tenable, because it would mean that יראו עינינו was recited during Talmudic times even during Shacharis. See שפת אמת who suggests that Tosfos may be speaking of an early minyan for Maariv as opposed to a later one. Only the later minyan which begins praying at night need recite יראו עינינו. The earlier minyan need not recite it. See שדה צופים by R’ Shmuel Dovid Friedman, Shlit”a who has a lengthy exposition on this Tosfos. Also see תוס' רבינו פרץ who does not have this last sentence in his text of Tosfos.</i> only at night.
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  AND [THE TANNA] TEACHES US [A NEW HALAKHA: FAILURE TO BRING AN] ATONEMENT OFFERING DOES NOT PREVENT. There are three levels of purification for one who became tamei:A) One who comes in contact with a source of tumah such as an animal corpse, immerses in a mikveh and may eat regular chulin and maaser sheni food immediately.B) In order to eat Terumah one must wait until nightfall after immersion in a mikveh.C) A person who experienced a tumah that emanates from his person, such as a metzora, a niddah, a zav or a woman after childbirth, needs to bring a sacrifice during the day after their immersion in order to eat sacrificial flesh.Our Mishna is teaching us that even though those in group C) who need to wait until the next day to offer a sacrifice, do not need to wait until the next day to eat terumah.If you ask: But [the Mishna] already taught this once in Maseches Negaim (17, 3) and it is cited in He’arael (Yevamos 74b) in reference to a metzora who immersed in a mikveh on the seventh day of his purification process and will offer his set of sacrifices the next day, when the sun sets in the west on the seventh day, he may eat terumah, even though he will not be permitted to eat sacrificial flesh till after he offers his sacrifices on the eight day. The Mishna clearly states the ruling that under all circumstances one may eat terumah after the day he immersed himself passes. Why does our Mishna repeat this ruling?We can answer: That it is the way of the Mishna to briefly inform us even that which is already known. If the Mishna here had taught this ruling at length, we would have a legitimate problem with the repetition. However, since the Mishna alludes to this ruling briefly, there is no problem. 
  
  Daf 2b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  PERHAPS THE SETTING OF [THE SUN'S] LIGHT. The Gemara on 2a quotes a Baraisa that teaches us that the verse in Vayikra 22, 7, ובא השמש - after the sun has set, וטהר - the day shall pass completely, is teaching us that after the sun sets on the day of immersion, when the stars appear, one becomes tahor and may eat terumah even when the tamei person is required to offer a series of sacrifices on the next day. The word וטהר refers not to the person who becomes tahor, but rather to the sky that is entirely free of any rays of the sun.The Gemara challenges this derivation. Why is the Tanna so certain that the words ובא השמש mean that the sun has set, perhaps ובא - means the “coming of the light” השמש  - of the sun?But what does “coming of its light” mean? Rashi explains that the Gemara’s question is that perhaps the verse is saying that one must wait until the sun rises the next morning and וטהר means that he must purify himself - the tamei must offer his series of sacrifices in the Bais Hamikdosh and he will first then be allowed to eat terumah.Tosfos vigorously objects to Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara’s challenge to the Baraisa, as we will now see. Rashi explained that when the Gemara asks: Perhaps1)	 the verse ובא השמש - means the “coming of light”, it means till [the sun’s] light will shine on the eighth day. And what does2)	the verse וטהר - and he will be purified mean? It is not a reference to the sky, but rather, the person will be purified. This means: That the person will become purified by offering his sacrifices.In other words, the Gemara’s challenge is totally rejecting the concept of one becoming purified after sunset of the seventh day and is suggesting that perhaps the verse means that one becomes eligible to eat terumah only after offering the needed sacrifices on the eighth day.Tosfos has three difficulties with Rashi’s explanation. The first: His explanation is bewildering. For if this is truly a challenge to the ruling that one becomes tahor at sunset of the seventh day, why is this challenge addressed to the Baraisa in our Gemara which explains the verse ובא השמש וטהר, [the Gemara] should challenge that Mishna cited in He’arel (Yevamos 74b), which says, when the sun sets in the west, [the former tamei] may eat terumah etc. How does the Tanna of that Mishna know that the verse is discussing the setting of the sun on the seventh day? Perhaps it is speaking of sunrise the next day? The Gemara should challenge the ruling of the Mishna, rather than the derivation of the Baraisa.The second question: Tosfos analyzes the words used to describe sunrise. Furthermore, how could the verse possibly be speaking about sunrise? For if it is speaking about sunrise, the verse should have been written as follows: The sun will shine and he must purify himself, as in (Bamidbar 21, 11) “from where the sun shines”. We see that the word זריחה is used to describe sunrise. Or, to describe sunrise, the term “went out” should be used, as in (Bereishis 19, 23) - “The sun went out upon the earth”. Here we see that the verb יציאה-going out is used to describe sunrise. Since the verse uses the expression “the sun will come”, it is apparent that it means sunset. Why would ובא - and it will come be used as a description of sunrise? If יצא is used to describe the ascent of the sun from below the horizon, ובא should be used to describe the descent of the sun below the horizon.A third question: The Gemara soon debates this issue in a slightly different format. First, the question about whether “coming of the sun” means sunset or sunrise (according to Rashi) is asked. The Gemara finds the answer in a Baraisa that speaks of the time of the recital of Shema as the time when the stars appear. This is fairly close to sunset, so “coming of the sun” must mean sunset. But according to Rashi’s explanation of the Gemara’s question, that the alternative to sunsetr is sunrise, the answer is quite evident from a Mishna. Why introduce a Baraisa to prove this point? Furthermore, soon [the Gemara] will ask: if this expression “the sun will come”, means “coming of its light”, which according to Rashi means sunrise. [The Gemara] solves this query from a Baraisa which says that a reminder of the time that one may eat terumah after immersion is when the stars become visible etc. Since the Baraisa refers to this time as the stars coming out, obviously the “coming of the sun” must mean sunset. But why is it necessary to deduce this from a Baraisa? It should be resolved from the Mishna in (Negaim 14, 3) where the Mishna clearly says: when the sun sets in the west, he may eat terumah. The Mishna is saying quite clearly that the time one becomes permitted to eat terumah is when the sun sets after he has immersed in a mikveh. This must be the time alluded to in the verse  ובא השמש וטהר as the “coming of the sun”. If so, why does the Gemara need to solve its question from a Baraisa?Tosfos offers an entirely different approach to the Gemara’s challenge: Perhaps the verse is speaking of the “coming of [the sun’s] light”? Tosfos holds that sunset consists of two events:A) The sphere of the sun passing over the horizon, when it is still quite light. This is called ביאת אורו, the great source of light, the sphere of the sun, has gone below the western horizon and cannot be seen. At this time there is of course ample light still reaching us.B) Approximately an hour later the sun is so far below the horizon that no light at all reaches us from the sun. This is called ביאת שמשו, the sun is giving us no light whatsoever.1<i class="footnote">The description of the setting of the sphere of the sun with its great light as ביאת אורו and the absence of any light from the sun as ביאת שמשו seems a bit strange. See תוספות הרא"ש who cites the ערוך as explaining the Gemara’s question as Tosfos does, but reverses the meanings of ביאת שמשו and ביאת אורו.</i>It is this second sunset, which will soon be followed by the appearance of the stars that is the legal end of the calendar day.To make this understandable, on the day of the vernal or autumnal equinox, March 21st or September 21st, the sun sets at six p.m. That is the first sunset A) ביאת אורו - the sphere of the sun has slipped below the western horizon. It is still quite light. The sky grows increasingly darker because the sphere of the sun continues to move further and further below the horizon. At about seven p.m. there is no longer any light reaching us from the sun. That is the second sunset B) ביאת שמשו, when no rays of the sun are reaching the sky.The Baraisa clearly says that it is ביאת שמשו, sunset B) that must pass before the tamei can eat terumah. Thus, the translation of ובא השמש is sunset B). The query of the Gemara according to Tosfos is: Perhaps the Torah is speaking of sunset A), when the sphere of the sun passes over the horizon?For the sake of clarity, I will divide the verse in both the Gemara’s conclusion and in the challenge. We can answer: That this is the explanation of the Gemara’s challenge. How do we know that1) the verse ובא השמש - “and the sun will set and (X) become pure” is speaking about sunset B) when the sun is absolutely below the horizon and no light rays reach us, and2) what is meant by וטהר - “it, the sky, becomes pure” - the entire day has passed, because there is absolutely no light reaching us from the sun?Perhaps,1)  the words ובא השמש -the sun will come, mean the coming of its light (sunset A) which is at the beginning of sunset and that is when it first enters into the sky below the horizon, and there is still time in the day to travel five mil2<i class="footnote">See Pesachim 94a, where there is a dispute about the distance that one can travel between sunset A) and the appearance of the stars. There are those who say that the distance on can travel is five mil (each mil is between three and four thousand feet). Others hold that the distance is four mil. Tosfos here cited the first opinion mentioned in the Gemara. However, as far as halacha is concerned, we rule that the distance is four mil, which is seventy two minutes. Keep in mind that there are myriad opinions about sunset and the appearance of the stars. I have explained this Tosfos according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, who is the Rishon of record in this issue of two sunsets. See תוספות הרא"ש who attributes this position to Rabbeinu Tam’s elder brother the רשב"ם.</i> till the stars appear.2) And what is meant by the word וטהר  and he will become pure? The person will be purified from his tumah and he need not wait till the stars appear.According to this explanation the idea that one is first permitted to eat terumah after offering sacrifices on the eighth day was never considered. The Gemara is wondering only why it is assumed that sunset B) that allows one to eat terumah and not sunset A). Now, there is no difficulty at all with the Mishna cited in He’arel, because the Gemara could say that when the Mishna there uses the term “the sun set in the west”, it means the setting of the sphere with its great light. We have absolutely no proof that the Mishna is speaking about the appearance of the stars as opposed to the sphere of the sun setting below the horizon. The term ‘the sun set in the west’ can apply equally to both sunset A) and sunset B).In regard to the third difficulty, that the Gemara should have solved its question of whether the verse ובא השמש is referring to the setting  of the sphere or to the setting of all light of the sun, it also cannot not be resolved from the Mishna in Negaim 14, 3, that [the verse] ובא השמש  is speaking of (sunset B) and the appearance of the stars.  The term used by the Mishna “the sun set in the west” can easily be interpreted as sunset A). There is no proof at all that one is required to wait until the stars appear. It is for this reason that it was necessary here to cite the Baraisa that identifies the end of the day as when the stars appear. It is only from that Baraisa that we know that the Rabanan interpreted the verse ובא השמש as speaking about sunset B) and not sunset A). 
  
  Line 2
  
  IF SO, [THAT THE VERSE IS REFERRING TO THE PURIFICATION OF THE <i>TAMEI</i>], THE VERSE SHOULD HAVE SAID ויטהר. In the previous Tosfos we learned that the according to Rashi the choice of meanings of וטהר is whether it is passive and referring to the passing of the day, or whether it is active and describing the tamei bringing his sacrifices to the Bais Hamikdosh. If it is the latter, then the word ויטהר is more accurate.However, according to Tosfos explanation, either of the choices are passive. The question is whether it is וטהר יומא- a description of what happens to the sky after the light disappears from the sky and the stars appear, or וטהר גברא - it is describing what automatically happens to the person who was tamei when the sphere of the sun sets below the horizon. In either case a passive verb could be used. Even though there are many places in the Torah where the word וטהר is written describing what happens to the person - that he becomes tahor. Why is the Gemara insisting that the verse should have used the verb ויטהר?There, where וטהר is used to describe what happens to the tamei person, there is no room for error. The word cannot be understood in any other way. However, here in the verse ובא השמש וטהר, where there is room for error, [the Torah] should have written ויטהר, which is definitely describing what happens to the tamei person.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  [THE BARAISA SAYS THAT THE TIME FOR RECITAL OF SHEMA IS] FROM THE TIME THAT A POOR MAN ENTERS [HIS HOME] TO EAT HIS BREAD WITH SALT, [UNTIL THE TIME THAT HE STANDS UP TO TAKE LEAVE FROM HIS MEAL]. If we take this literally, the time to recite Shema is a very small window. Let us assume that the poor man arrives home at six p.m. and his meal lasts till six thirty p.m. He must recite Shema and pray within this period. This is bewildering! When will the poor man himself pray? For you are saying that only the time of his meal between six and six thirty p.m. is the time for recital of Shema,  and as soon as the time for recital of Shema at his mealtime arrives it is forbidden to begin a meal until he first prays, as we learn in a Baraisa later (4b): One recites Shema and prays first and then eats his bread and recites a blessing for the meal he has eaten. Whoever transgresses the words of the Sages and eats before praying is liable for the death penalty. If he cannot eat his meager meal first, when will he pray?1<i class="footnote">Perhaps he should postpone his meal somewhat? For example, if the time that he comes home to eat is six p.m., he should first pray and recite Shema and then eat. מהרש"א explains that Tosfos does not consider this a possibility. The reason that he comes home to eat so early is because he does not have sufficient artificial light as Rashi explains. If so, his meal cannot be put off, because he will not have sufficient artificial light to eat his meal.</i>We can answer: The time for prayer is before the time of his meal. But isn’t his mealtime the time for recital of Shema? The time mentioned in the Baraisa - “when the poor man enters to eat his meal” is imprecise, rather, [the Gemara] means slightly before his mealtime. So that while his meal is being prepared, he can recite Shema and pray the eighteen Berachos.2<i class="footnote">See תוספות הרא"ש who explains that the word נכנס לאכל implies that that the time is not exactly when he begins his meal, rather when he comes home and the meal is prepared. During the preparation, he recites Shema and prays.</i> He arrives home at five forty five, his meal is prepared till six. During that time he recites Shema and prays.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  IF IT SHOULD ENTER UPON YOUR MIND THAT [THE TIME OF A] POOR MAN [WHO ENTERS TO EAT HIS BREAD WITH SALT] IS EARLIER [THAN THE APPEARANCE OF THE STARS], R’ CHANINA [WHO SAYS THAT THE TIME FOR RECITING SHEMA IS WHEN THE POOR MAN ENTERS TO EAT HIS MEA]L IS THE SAME AS R’ ELIEZER [WHO SAYS THAT THE TIME IS WHEN THE DAY IS SANCTIFIED AND WE MUST COMMENCE THE OBSERVANCE OF SHABBOS, WHICH IS AT TWILIGHT]. The Gemara concludes that we cannot say the time of R’ Chanina is before R’ Yehoshua, because that would then be the same as R’ Eliezer. Therefore the time of R’ Chanina, which is when the poor man enters to eat his meal must be later than the appearance of the stars.We know that it is Tosfos’ opinion that twilight begins approximately thirteen and a half minutes before the stars appear. If R’ Yehoshua is saying that the time for Shema is seven p.m., R’ Eliezer is saying that it is six forty seven p.m. Why must it be that R’ Chanina is also saying that the time for Shema is six forty seven p.m.? Isn’t it possible that R’ Chanina is saying that it is earlier or later than six forty seven p.m.? Tosfos will explain why R’ Chanina would be saying the same as R’ Eliezer. It cannot be said that the time of a poor man entering for his meal is earlier than when the day is sanctified at sunset B) when we perforce must begin the observance of Shabbos because there is a legitimate doubt that it may already be Shabbos, and R’ Chanina is saying that the time for reciting Shema is before six forty seven p.m., or that the day is sanctified before the time that a poor man enters for his meal, and R’ Chanina is saying that the time for reciting Shema is between six forty seven p.m. and seven p.m., because it is not logical that there should be so much disagreement about the time of going to sleep,1<i class="footnote">At face value Tosfos’ answer is very difficult to understand. If Tosfos has a problem with the amount of opinions about the time one lies down to sleep, what difference is there if R’ Chanina is speaking about a time before the stars appear or after the stars appear? In either case he is adding a new opinion about when the time one lies down to sleep is. See מהרש"א who says that Tosfos’ problem is with more opinions about a time when one lies down before nightfall. That there may be more opinions about the זמן שכיבה after nightfall is not an issue. See תוס' הרא"ש who offers a similar approach by רב האי גאון The simple understanding might be that the זמן שכיבה per se is unrelated to nightfall. Those who do relate it to nightfall must understand that ובשכבך means the period of time when one goes to sleep, which is at night, therefore the beginning of night is the זמן שכיבה This is either when the stars appear as R’ Yehoshua holds or when sunset B) occurs as R’ Eliezer holds. These are both astronomic events that relate to the beginning of night. There is no other astronomic event that qualifies. Thus Tosfos’ finds it difficult to say that R’ Chanina holds of some other time than R’ Eliezer. The other opinions are based on when people actually do go to sleep. Tosfos concedes that there may be many different opinions about the actual time that people lie down to sleep, since this is not dependent on any astronomical event, but rather on what the norm is.</i> and that there should so many different opinions about the times that would qualify as the time [that one lies down to sleep].
  
  Line 17
  
  SAYS R’ YEHUDAH TO [R’ MEIR, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THE TIME FOR RECITING SHEMA IS WHEN THE KOHANIM IMMERSE THEMSELVES], BUT THE KOHANIM IMMERSE THEMSELVES WHEN IT IS STILL DAYTIME? R’ Meir’s challenge to R’ Yehudah indicates that it is inconceivable that the time for reciting the evening Shema is when it is still daytime. Tosfos’ finds this statement by R’ Yehudah extremely perplexing. This is bewildering! [R’ Yehudah] should ask the very same question to himself? For the half minchah1<i class="footnote">See Artscroll 26b notes 28 and 29, for a definition of half minchah. According to R’ Yehudah when the half minchah passes one can no longer say the minchah prayers and may recite maariv prayers. At that time he will recite the evening Shema. On a day when the stars appear at six p.m. the half minchah will be at four forty five p.m. when the sun is still shining.</i> is still during the day and [R’ Yehudah] says (below 27a) that immediately after the half minchah passes is the time for evening prayers and we recite Shema while the sun is still brightly shining. According to Tosfos, if the stars appear at six p.m. the half minchah is approximately at four forty five p.m. The last time for immersion would be at approximately five forty five p.m. R’ Yehudah’s recital time is almost an hour earlier than R’ Meir’s. Why does he have a difficulty with R’ Meir’s opinion that the time for reciting Shema is before sunset B)? His own opinion is that the time for reciting Shema is even earlier.There must be a fundamental difference between R’ Meir and R’ Yehudah about the time for reciting Shema. We can answer: That according to [R’ Yehudah] there is no difficulty with reciting while it is still daytime, because he does not expound the words ובשכבך ובקומך-when you lie down to sleep and when you arise2<i class="footnote">How does R’ Yehudah explain the words ובשכבך ובקומך? Some suggest that R’ Yehudah follows his teacher R’ Tarfon who holds like Bais Shamai that  ובשכבך ובקומך refers to the position that one must be in when reciting the Shema. During the evening Shema one must recline and during the morning Shema one must stand.</i> as defining the time to recite Shema. The Mitzvah  is dependent on day or night and the half minchah is the beginning of night insofar as the order of prayers is concerned. However, it is definitely not the time for lying down to sleep.However, according to those Rabanan who do expound the verse ובשכבך ובקומך as the source for the time to recite Shema, there is a difficulty, because the time of immersion is definitely not the time when people lie down to sleep.
  
  Daf 3a
  
  
  
  Daf 3b
  
  
  
  Daf 4a
  
  
  
  Daf 4b
  
  
  
  Daf 5a
  
  
  
  Daf 5b
  
  
  
  Daf 6a
  
  
  
  Daf 6b
  
  
  
  Daf 7a
  
  
  
  Daf 7b
  
  
  
  Daf 8a
  
  
  
  Daf 8b
  
  
  
  Daf 9a
  
  
  
  Daf 9b
  
  
  
  Daf 10a
  
  
  
  Daf 10b
  
  
  
  Daf 11a
  
  
  
  Daf 11b
  
  
  
  Daf 12a
  
  
  
  Daf 12b
  
  
  
  Daf 13a
  
  
  
  Daf 13b
  
  
  
  Daf 14a
  
  
  
  Daf 14b
  
  
  
  Daf 15a
  
  
  
  Daf 15b
  
  
  
  Daf 16a
  
  
  
  Daf 16b
  
  
  
  Daf 17a
  
  
  
  Daf 17b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  ONE WHOSE DECEASED [RELATIVE] IS LAID OUT [UNBURIED] BEFORE HIM. In Rashi’s text this perek  mee shemaso, appears after the perek  t’feelas hashachar. However, it appears to R”I, that it should be after היה קורא (as it is in our Gemaros), for at the end of היה קורא  the Mishna is discussing rules of k’reeas sh’ma. And here the Mishna also starts with exemptions from k’reeas sh’ma. And in Yerushalmee the text is as we have it. 
  [HE IS] EXEMPT FROM THE RECITATION OF THE <i>SHEMA</i>. Rashi says that the reason for the exemption is because a person occupied with the plans for burying his relative is similar to a choson who is occupied with involvement in a mitzvoh. Tosfos quotes a Yerushalmee that has a more specific source for this rule.The Yerushalmee explains the reason for the exemption.  Rav Bon said: it is written (D’vorim 16, 3) “so that you should remember etc.” till “all the days of your life”. The verse could have concluded with “all your days” by saying “all the days of your life” it is implying that the obligation to perform mitzvos is for  days that you are occupied with life and not on days that you are occupied with death. See the חרדים ספר מבעל פירוש on the Y’rushalmee for an explanation why an additional verse is needed to exempt one when occupied with the death of a relative and the general exemption for one involved in a mitzvoh is insufficient.This is the text. One whose dead relative is in front of him is exempt from reading sh’ma, and from prayer1<i class="footnote">This text is very problematic. We will soon see in the Tosfos on this page that it appears that Tosfos did not have the words and from prayer in his text of the Gemara.</i> and from t’filin.
  
  Line 13
  
  THIS IS RASHI’S TEXT: Those pallbearers that are behind the bier, even if they are still needed to carry the bier are obligated to recite the sh’ma, because in reality they were never used to carry the bier,1<i class="footnote">See Rashi    ד'ה ושלאחר. It seems that Tosfos might have had a slightly different text of Rashi. In Our reading of Rashi, it seems that he is saying that since those who are behind the bier fulfilled their obligation to do the mitzvoh; they must now recite the sh’ma. It does not say that they were never called upon again to carry the bier.</i> because they had already carried their share. And it is somewhat bewildering to explain this idiom. What is the Mishna saying with the words “even when they are needed”? For those who were behind the bier, according to Rashi’s explanation never actually carried the dead body.Therefore it appears that the correct text is as the books whose text reads: those who are in front of the bier and those who are behind the bier, those who are needed to carry the bier are exempt from reading sh’ma and those who are not needed to carry the bier are obligated to read the sh’ma.
  BOTH THESE AND THOSE ARE EXEMPT FROM [RECITING THE <i>AMIDAH</i>] PRAYER. Those who are needed to carry the bier and those who are not needed are exempt from prayer. However, to recite sh’ma and wear t’filin they are obligated. And the beginning of the Mishna that says an onain whose dead relative is lying before him, is exempt from reciting sh’ma and wearing t’filin etc. even though the Mishna does not mention that he is exempt from prayer, it is a kal v’chomer that he is exempt from prayer.If so, why didn’t the Mishna mention that one’s whose relative died is exempt from reciting sh’ma? But the Mishna only wanted to mention in the beginning the differences between the pallbearers who are not needed because they already carried the bier and one who’s dead relative is laying before him.
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  [HE] DOES NOT RECITE A BLESSING. The term onain has different meanings. For the purposes of our Gemara an onain is a person whose close relative has died. He is responsible to take care of the burial. After he discharges his duty as an onain, he usually becomes an אבל a mourner, and he is governed by the rules of mourning. Rashi explained that he is not required to recite a b’rochoh. And it seems from his explanation that if he wants to recite a b’rochoh he may do so.However, Yerushalmee says that if one wants to be stringent and recite a b’rochoh, we do not listen to him and he is not allowed to be stringent. Therefore, it is sensible to say that “he does not recite a b’rochoh” means that he is not permitted to recite a b’rochoh.And Yerushalmee explains why and says because of the honor of the deceased. When an onain insists on reciting b’rochos even though he is not obligated to do so, it seems that he is not truly concerned with the needs of the dead. Or, because he does not have “one who will carry his load”.1<i class="footnote">This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased.</i> If the deceased’s closest relative is involved with performing other mitzvos, who will carry the deceased to his resting place? In order to insure that the deceased receives a proper burial, the relatives may not perform other mitzvos until they have discharged their obligation to bury him properly.And the Yerushalmee asks: We have learned in a Braiso that he, the onain, is exempt from picking up a lulov. And the Yerushalmee originally thought that the exemption we are speaking of is on Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov the onain is not occupied with carrying his load, i.e. he will not bury the deceased on Yom Tov. If the reason for the exemption is that the relative should be free to bury the deceased, the exemption should not be in effect on Yom Tov when the onain will not bury him in any case?And Yerushalmee answers: it should be construed that the Braiso that speaks of an exemption for picking up a lulov is discussing a weekday. The explanation: the intermediate weekdays of the holiday when one is obligated to take a lulov and may also bury a dead body. The Yerushalmee continues with its questioning of the opinion that the exemption is because otherwise nobody will involve themselves with the burial.And we learned in a Braiso that he is exempt from blowing shofor? Can you possibly  say that this is also  speaking about a weekday and not Yom Tov? There is no time that we blow shofor on a weekday. Tosfos explains that the Yerushalmee is saying that  this is bewildering; it is not an answer to the question.It is clear from the second Braiso that the exemption from mitzvos for the deceased’s relatives is in effect even on Yom Tov when he will not bury the deceased in any case. This does not make sense if the reason for the exemption is that the relative must be free to bury the deceased. It seems that our only option is to say that there are certain things that may be done to prepare for the burial even on Yom Tov and that is why the deceased’s relative may not perform the mitzvoh of blowing shofor.And Yerushalmee  answers: Rav Chanino said that even on Yom Tov  the relative is required to prepare a coffin and shrouds as we are taught by the Mishna (Shabos 151a): we may wait for darkness at the edge of  the Shabos  boundary2<i class="footnote">On Shabos there is a limit to how far one may walk outside a city. It is two thousand amos, approximately 0.8 miles. This is called the Shabos boundary.</i> beyond which one may not travel on Shabos, so that we will be in a more convenient place  to bring a coffin and shrouds for the deceased. Since we may make these preparations even on Shabos, even though we do not actually bury the deceased on Shabos, it is also a day that one is involved in “carrying his load” and the onain may not occupy himself with other mitzvos.What evolves now is that according to the Yerushalmee’s answer, even on Shabos and Yom Tov an onain may not occupy himself with other mitzvos as we see from the Braiso that an onain may not listen to shofor on Rosh Hashonoh. We see that even  on Shabos and Yom Tov one is not permitted to recite a b’rochoh or to pray because he is occupied with waiting for darkness at the edge of the Shabos  boundary beyond which one may not travel,  in order to bring a coffin and shrouds. And this conclusion is contradicted by the end of our Braiso that teaches that on Shabos we may recite a b’rochoh for the onain and we may count him toward the special  zimun recited before the b’rochoh after the meal.  And so too, we learned in a Braiso in Yerushalmee about the status of an onain.  When are these things prohibiting the onain in the performance of mitzvos  said: during the weekdays, but on Shabos he may recline and eat and recite a b’rochoh and we answer omain after he recites a b’rochoh. We see that on Shabos and Yom Tov the laws of onain are not in effect and this seems to contradict the conclusion of the Yerushalmee.Sometimes contradictions are too difficult to resolve.  And R”I says: that the beginning of the Braiso and the end are in disagreement with each other. The beginning of the Braiso holds that laes of an onain are in effect on Shabos and Yom Tov and the end of the Braiso holds they are not.There are many times throughout the Gemara where the Gemara says that the one who taught the beginning of the Braiso did not teach the end of the Braiso, which means that the first part of the Braiso and the second part were authored by different Tanoim. This is not a preferred resolution to a contradiction but it is sometimes used. In Yerushalmee it is used more often than in Bavlee. Tosfos will now offer another approach. And R’ N’sanail used to say that it is possible to reconcile the Braiso that teaches that the laws of onain are in effect on Shabos with the end of our Braiso that teaches that the laws of onain are not in effect on Shabos.  For certainly if one intends to wait for darkness at the edge of the Shabos  boundary, we should then say that he is occupied with waiting for darkness at the edge of the Shabos boundary,  and he may not recite a b’rochoh. However, in the end of the Braiso it is speaking of when he has no intention of waiting for darkness at the edge of the Shabos boundary, and therefore he is not actively involved with the needs of the deceased and he may recite a b’rochoh and do other mitzvos as well.However, this explanation has nothing to do with the other reason mentioned in the Yerushalmee for prohibiting an onain from performing mitzvos  because of the honor of the deceased. The onain’s involvement with mitzvos shows that he is not truly concerned about the death of his relative. Earlier in the Yerushalmee, it seemed that it was satisfied that according to this reason one is not allowed to pick up a lulov or listen to shofor. This indicates that the laws of onain are in effect on Yom Tov. This point was never challenged and remains true even at the conclusion of the Gemara. According to that reason we must say that the end of the Braiso, which allows an onain to perform mitzvos on Shabos, does not agree with the Braiso that prohibits an onain from performing mitvos on Yom Tov. There is no way of resolving the contradiction according to the opinion that an onain may not perform mitzvos because of the honor of the deceased.Tosfos now moves to another issue about the rules of an onain. And from the Yerushalmee that answers, that the Braiso which says that  an onain is exempt from picking up a lulov is speaking of the intermediate weekdays of the holiday, when an onain is occupied to “carry his load”,1<i class="footnote">This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased.</i> we can learn that on the intermediate  weekdays of the holidays the laws of onain apply when one’s deceased relative is laying before him. And since the laws apply when the deceased is lying before him, so too,  when the responsibility of burying the deceased is upon the onain, it is as is the deceased  is laying before him and he is exempt from the performance of mitzvos.  And the same is true of the reverse situation. For  one whose deceased relative is lying before him but is not responsible to bury him, the laws of  onain are not in effect.And so it seems from Yerushalmee which says that  when the bier is handed over to the multitude,3<i class="footnote">This expression is used when the deceased is going to be buried in a distant place.</i> who will transport the body to another city, the onain, who is not accompanying the deceased  may eat meat and drink wine. These activities are prohibited while he is an onain. The permission to engage in them signifies that the period of onain is over.  When he is handed over to the shoulder carriers,4<i class="footnote">This expression is used when the burial will take place locally.</i> who transport the deceased to the local cemetery  it is as if he was handed over to the multitude, and the period of onain has passed.Tosfos will now analyze exactly what happens when the deceased is handed over to the multitude and when the period of onain ends. And we are compelled to say that when the phrase “handed over to the multitude” is used, it means that the period of onain ends even though the deceased is still  in front him. For if it meant when the deceased is no longer in front of him, why is the fact that he was handed over to the multitude mentioned at all? That is not significant, for once the deceased was removed from in front of the onain,  we should know that the laws of onain do not apply,  because he immediately becomes a mourner as soon as the deceased is removed from the doorway of his house. Since Yerushalmee says that the period of onain ends with the bier being “handed over to the multitude”, this implies that it is not the same as when the bier is removed from the doorway of the house. If so, we must know why the period of onain ends when the bier is handed over to the multitude, even before it leaves the doorway of the house. The reason must be that at the time he hands over the bier to the multitude he has discharged his obligation to take care of the burial and he is no longer involved with it and even though he has not yet become a mourner till the bier leaves the doorway of the house the period of onain has passed and he must perform mitzvos. We see that the laws of onain are in effect only as long as one is involved with the burial.Tosfos is now reaching the major point that he was attempting to teach us. And since the laws of onain do not go into effect when one is not involved with the burial of the deceased,  if so, a person who cannot bury his relative’s body, for example a person who died in prison and the governor does not allow him to be buried, it appears that the relatives are not obligated to observe the laws of onain, because it is not incumbent upon them to bury him since they cannot redeem him and remove him to bury him, as we learned in Maseches S’mochos: when the relatives give up hope of burying the deceased they begin mourning, and the rules of onain end.It would appear from the Braiso in Maseches S’mochos that when they give up hope of burying their relative, the period of mourning begins. If so, when the governor does not allow the burial of their relative, they should begin the period of mourning. However, for  him who was held by the governor, they are also not obligated to begin mourning. For this is not similar to the case in Maseches S’mochos where  the relatives gave up hope of burying the deceased, for in that case they no longer expect to bury him. However, here when the governor is not allowing the relatives to bury the deceased,  they are still expecting to reach a compromise with the governor, that he should allow them to bury him. They are therefore not in the period of onain, because at this point in time there is nothing they can do about burying their relative. They are also not in a period of mourning because they still hope to be allowed to bury the deceased.And so too, with the story of R’ Elozor Ben R’ Shimon in Bovo Metzeeo 84b, the Gemara relates that he was not buried for many years, once the decision was made not to bury him  the mitzvoh of being an  onain ceased, and his family were not bound to the laws of onain. And it happened that the sister of Rabainu Tam died on Shabos and he was informed after Shabos. He ate meat and drank wine and he said in explanation of his behavior,  since she has a husband who is obligated to bury her, he, her brother, is not forbidden to eat meat and drink wine. And it is possible that even if Rabainu Tam had been in the city itself where his sister passed away,  he would have been lenient for that reason. Since his reason was that her husband was obligated to take care of her needs, Rabainu Tam’s presence in the city where she died would make no difference. 
  
  Daf 18a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  WITH PHYLACTERIES ON HIS HEAD AND A TORAH SCROLL IN HIS ARM AND READ [FROM IT]. The Braiso says that one may not walk in a cemetery while carrying a sefer Torah and reading from it. Since the reason for this prohibition is because it seems as if we are ridiculing the deceased who can no longer fulfill mitzvos, Tosfos points out that the Braiso is not to be taken literallyAnd the same ruling applies, that it is prohibited to recite Torah by heart.
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  AND RIDE ON THEM. One is not allowed to put the remains of a corpse in a box and ride on the box. However, if he slings the box over his shoulder and it hangs on his back as he rides  on a donkey that is fine. And the same is true of a sefer Torah. One may ride on a donkey while carrying a sefer Torah slung over his shoulder. And even if it is in your mindset to prohibit that arrangement for a sefer Torah, but for the Prophets and Writings it is certainly  fine.1<i class="footnote">The text is emended by Maharsho who says that Tosfos should read:  However it appears that for a sefer Torah it is also fine to carry it as it is slung over one’s shoulder. See Rosh Chapter 3, Simon 7, and Tosfos HaRosh. It is evident that he had the text that Maharsho suggests.</i>However, it appears that for a sefer Torah it is also permissible since the Braiso mentions that  a sefer Torah has the same rule as a corpse and the Braiso definitely indicates that a corpse in a box may be carried as it is slung over his shoulder and hanging on his back.Tosfos now questions this point. Perhaps the Braiso only spoke of a sefer Torah to tell us that if it is in danger of being seized by gentiles or bandits, it is permitted to ride while sitting on it?  And it is not logical to say that the sefer Torah is mentioned only to tell us that  it is permitted to ride on it when running away from gentiles or bandits and not to allow one to carry it as it is slung over his shoulder,  for it is simple that it is permitted to rescue the sefer Torah by riding on it  for why would that possibly  be prohibited?2<i class="footnote">This seems to contradict the Gemara that says that the reason the sefer Torah is mentioned is to tell us that the rule in the end of the Braiso applies to the sefer Torah and not the rule at the beginning of the Braiso. See Rosh (ibid) and Tosfos HaRosh where you will find a slightly different text that resolves this question.</i> We must therefore conclude that the reason the sefer Torah is mentioned in the Braiso is to tell us that when there is no danger, it is permitted to ride with it slung over one’s shoulder and hanging from his back.Tosfos offers further proof that it is permitted to ride with a sefer Torah slung over one’s shoulder. And furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Yerushalmee: a box full of s’forim or there were in it bones of a deceased person,  one may sling them over his shoulder and let them hang from  his back and ride on the donkey. The Yerushalmee is clearly stating that whatever is mentioned in our Braiso may be carried while riding on a donkey if the rider slings them over his back and does not sit on them.
  
  Line 11
  
  RATHER [ACCORDING TO] THE LATTER CLAUSE, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO RIDE ON THEM BECAUSE OF BANDITS. And the same comparison of sefer Torah to a corpse applies for carrying a sefer Torah  hanging from one’s back. It is permitted even when there are no bandits pursuing him.
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  TOMORROW, [THEY WILL] COME TO [BE BURIED WITH] US, AND NOW [THEY ARE] INSULTING US. The Gemara says that the dead are upset with the living who are showing that they, the living, are obligated to keep the mitzvos while the dead have no mitzvos. Tosfos will begin a lengthy discussion about this particular ruling and why it has changed over the generations. The underlying ruling is based on the verse “ridiculing a poor man embarrasses him”. The Rabbis understand that the “poor man”, is one who can no longer perform mitzvos, the dead. He is embarrassed by his inability to perform the mitzvos. When one walks with tzizis dragging on his grave, the deceased is upset.Tosfos asks: This Gemara that teaches us that the dead are upset when the living wear tzitzis near their graves  is bewildering. For the Gemara says in perek Hat’chailes (M’nochos 41a), in a discussion of whether one is required to have tzitzis on garments that are to be used for burial, that at that time, when one is actually buried, we certainly put them on for him. The explanation: we place tzitzis on their talisos because of the verse of “ridiculing the poor man”. It seems that precisely for this reason, that the dead should not be upset that they have no tzitzis we do place tzitzis on their garments. If so, how can the Gemara say here that when we wear tzitzis near their graves they are upset?Tosfos answers: And we can answer: that this is the explanation here in our Gemara. Even though the dead also have tzitzis on their shrouds as we see from the Gemara in M’nochos, they are embarrassed by the fact  that the living are obligated to perform the mitzvos  and the dead are not obligated to perform the mitzvos, and one who is obligated to perform a mitzvo  is greater than one who is not obligated to perform a mitzvo. See Bovo Kamo 38a. This inherent difference between the living and the dead is a source of anguish for the dead.Tosfos is satisfied with this answer. However, he has a difficulty understanding why we do not follow the Gemara in M’nochos that clearly says we should put tzitzis on the shrouds of the dead.1<i class="footnote">Literally שנא ומאי means: and what is the difference? Maharsho emends the text to read טעמא ומאי, and what is the reason?</i> And this is difficult. That Gemara in Hat’chailes says that we should put strings, tzitzis, for the garments of the dead, and now we remove the tzitzis from their shrouds. And what is the reason for this?Tosfos explains that this custom of removing the tzitzis from the dead reflects a change in the general practice of wearing tzitzis in the times of Rabainu Tam as compared to the practice during the times of the Gemara. According to Torah law one is required to wear tzitzis only when he is wearing a four cornered garment. During the times of the Gemara it was customary to wrap oneself with a four cornered garment. During the times of Rabainu Tam, the Jews of Europe did not generally wear a four cornered garment. Rather, as we do today, they put on a special Talis for prayer so that they could fulfill the Mitzvo, but this was not part of their regular dress.Rabainu Tam says: that the Gemara in M’nochos that requires that we put tzitzis on the shrouds of the dead is exclusively for them, who lived in the times of the Gemara, who usually during their lifetime all wore a Talis of four corners and wore tzitzis on those talisos, and also all those involved in taking care of the needs of the dead had tzitzis, and in that situation it would be ridiculing “a poor man” if they, the deceased, had no tzitzis. Or perhaps because it is written that the mitzvo of tzitzis is לדורתם for their generations. On the simplest level this means that the mitzvo applies for all future generations. However the world  לדורתם is spelled with only one “vov” before the “ר”, the “vov” after the “ר” is omitted. It is as if we read the word  תם לדור, for a perfect generation, i.e. those who always fulfilled the mitzvo should have tzitzis on their garments for all time. Those who did not fulfill the mitzvo full time should not have tzitzis on their garments for all time.However, we who even during our lives it is not our custom to constantly wear tzitzis, if we would place tzitzis  for the dead, that would be ridiculing the “poor man”, since we would be treating them as if they always wore tzitzis during their lifetime when they actually did not.This reason explains why we do not put tzitzis on the shrouds of those who did not constantly wear tzitzis during their lifetime, but what about those who did? And if you should say that we should place tzitzis on the shrouds of those who did wear tzitzis constantly during their lifetimes? If we were to do  so, then  it would be a case of  “ridiculing the poor man” for others who did not constantly wear tzitzis during their lifetime.Rabainu Tam suggests another possible reason that we do not put tzitzis on shrouds. And furthermore, Rabainu Tam says, that he heard from the people of Lozere that we remove the tzitzis from shrouds  because the word ציצית comes to a numeric value of six hundred thirteen, the word itself equals six hundred,2<i class="footnote">צ=90, י=10, צ=90, י=10, ת=400, total = 600.</i> together with the eight strings and five knots. And if one wears tzitzis when in the grave it appears as if he fulfilled all of the Torah and that seems like a falsehood. It is an unpleasant situation when we testify that a person fulfilled all the mitzvos during his lifetime and he really did not.Rabainu Tam rejects this idea. And this is not clear. For if that were the reason we do not put tzitzis on shrouds then even the living nowadays are subject to the same rationale. Why do they wear tzitzis, they did not fulfill the entire Torah? There are many mitzvos related to the temple service and the laws that apply only in Eretz Yisroel that we cannot fulfill. Since the living, do wear tzitzis even though they do not fulfill all of the mitzvos, the dead could also have tzitzis on their shrouds even though they did not fulfill all the mitzvos during their lifetime.Up until this point we have been searching for reasons why the ruling of the Gemara in M’nochos does not apply to us. Now Rabainu Tam presents a source in Chazal for our custom. However, we can say that we rely on Maseches S’mochos (perek 12) which relates that Abbo Shoul, a Tano,  commanded his sons that they should remove his t’chailes, tzitzis,  from his garment. We see that even during the times of the Tanoim there were those who held that we should not leave tzitzis on shrouds.This source from Maseches S’mochos is questionable. Those small M’sechtos, printed in our Gemara after Maseches Sanhedrin, are referred to as the “outside s’forim”. They are not included in the Talmud. Rabainu Tam must show us that they can be used as a source for our customs even though they are not part of the Talmud. And even though the Gemara in M’nochos 41a argues with him, Abbo Shoul, there are certain areas of halacha  where we depart from our Gemara and we do as in the outside s’forim.One example of where we follow the outside s’forim: For example the reading of the Haftorah חזון ישעיה that we always read on the Shabos before the ninth of Ov  as is taught by the P’sikta, whereas in our G’mara it is only read on Shabos Rosh Chodesh Ov.A second example of where we follow the outside s’forim: And also  for example the reading of ויחל, that in the Gemara we find (M’giloh 31a) that on a fast day we read the blessings and the curses of B’chukosai,  and in Maseches Sofrim it says that we read  ויחל, which is what we do. We see that in these two instances we follow the outside s’forim. So too, as far as removing the tzitzis from shrouds, we follow the outside s’forim.Tosfos presents another opinion about this issue: And the Ritzva customarily did not remove the tzitzis from the corners of the garment of the dead;  rather he tied and fastened them to the corner, within the corner3<i class="footnote">Perhaps there was a pocket on the corner as we sometimes find on the tzitzis manufactured today.</i> in order to keep himself away from of an argument. His rationale was that if they are obligated to have tzitzis, they do have tzitzis, albeit they are not hanging as tzitzis ordinarily do.  And if they are  not obligated to have tzitzis,  they are covered by the pocket.
  
  Line 14
  
  TWO ALTAR-HEARTHS OF MOAB. The temple is referred to as שני אריאל מואב, For the names of David and Solomon, who built the temple and descended from Ruth the Moabite.On a simple level the Gemara us asking: Are all others the children of dead men? Certainly the use of the expression “son of a living man” must have some special connotation. In the precise books the text is as follows: In the prophets it is written חי, living, and we read חיל, mighty. And the Gemara deduces from the written text חי, because חיל is not written as it is read, rather חי. If the word חיל was written as it is read, the Gemara would have no question at all. It is only because the written word is  חי that causes us to ask, in what way was this man different than others and why is he called the son of a living man.The Gemara says That B’noyohu studied the entire Sifra d’bai Rav on a short winter day. Sifra d’bai Rav expounds all the verses in Vayikra and is the most difficult of the books that explain the verses of the Torah. How does the Gemara know that it was this specific book that B’noyohu learned? The Gemara knows that he studied Sifra d’bai Rav from the use of the word ארי to describe the book,  because that is the most difficult of all the books that expound the verses of the Torah.This term is also used to teach us that the book he studied is the Sifra d’dai Rav. The term הבור בתוך implies that the subject is in the center. Since Sifra d’bai Rav expounds Vayikra it can be described as in the center, because Vayikra  is in the middle of  the s’forim of the Torah.The Gemara presents the story of Shmuel’s conversation with his father as proof that the dead are aware of what happens among the living. Rashi says that this can be seen from Shmuel’s father knowledge that Shmuel was considered an important person among the living. Tosfos understands that the proof that the dead are aware of what transpires among the living is that he told Shmuel that he would soon be leaving this world. Tosfos has a problem with his explanation. The Gemara just said that there is an angel Dumoh who announces who is about to arrive from this world to the next. If so Shmuel’s father’s knowledge of Shmuel’s imminent arrival does not prove that the dead are generally aware of what transpires on this world. Perhaps Rashi anticipated Tosfos question and wrote that the proof is that his father knew that he was an important person. This of course is not information that he would have received from Dumoh. Tosfos on the other hand may not accept Rashi’s explanation because Shmuel’s father was telling him that he is an important person in the next world not in this world as Rashi explained.The proof that the dead are aware of what happens on this world is  because Shmuel’s father  said that you will soon be coming to the next world. And the Gemara could not have answered as it did earlier that  Dumoh preceded Shmuel  and told them that Shmuel will soon die. For Dumoh’s announcement is only when death is imminent, but so far ahead of Shmuel’s death, Dumoh does not advance the information of who will soon die,  for he himself does not know, so far in advance.1<i class="footnote">It seems that Tosfos knows that Shmuel did not die immediately and that Dumoh does not have very advanced information. He only knows who is about to die imminently. Perhaps Tosfos knew that Shmuel did not die immediately because it must have taken some time for Shmuel to contact the people who had deposited the orphan’s assets with his father. In the previous story the dead girl said that her friend was coming tomorrow and the Gemara suggested that perhaps she heard from Dumoh. We see that Dumoh has knowledge of what is about to happen imminently. There is no proof that Dumoh knows well in advance who is going to die.</i>
  
  Daf 18b
  
  
  
  Daf 19a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  EVEN WHEN THERE IS PEACE UPON ISRAEL. The Gemara says that one who slanders a Talmid Chochom even after his death will fall into Gehinom. The Gemara presented this verse to prove its point:והמטים עקלקלותם יוליכם ה' את פועלי האון שלום על ישראלWhere do we see in the verse that we are speaking about a Talmid Chochom who has passed away? Tosfos explains: It is from the words שלום על ישראל.This is referring to the period after his, the talmid chochom’s death, when he will not come to fight with those who speak of his shameful deeds. From here it is evident that the verse is speaking of after the talmid chochom’s death.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  [THEY REQUIRED HER] TO DRINK [BECAUSE SHE WAS] LIKE THEM. Akavyo argued with the Rabanan who said that the waters of the sotoh, called the bitter water, which are supposed to test the suspected adulteress are given to a convert and a freed slave woman. When the Rabanan presented the case of Karkamis, a freed slave woman who was given the bitter water, Akavyo responded with the words דוגמא השקוה. The word דוגמא literally means similar or an example. How exactly does this word relate to the confrontation between Akavyo and the Rabanan?Rashi explained that since she was a convert as they, Sh’mayoh and Avtalyon, were converts. Since they themselves were converts they tended to deal with her as a full-fledged Jewess and had her drink the bitter water, but they were not correct for doing so. And so too, it appears in Yerushalmee of Moaid Koton (perek 3): The Yerushalmee asks what is דוגמא? That she was like them. She was a convert as they were converts.Tosfos suggests another explanation of the word דוגמא as it is used in this Mishna. The Oruch explains that השקוה דוגמא does not refer to the Rabanan who said that she must drink the bitter water, but to the water that she drank water which was dyed so that it appeared as if it was bitter water, but they were not actually the bitter waters and they did not erase the Torah onto the water as is prescribed in Parsha Noso. Obviously that water did not have the power to verify whether she had committed adultery or not, but they gave her the water to drink in order to cause her to fear the consequences of her action.
  
  Daf 19b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  [WE] WOULD JUMP OVER COFFINS. The Gemara relates that when running to honor a king, the Kohanim would skip over coffins in order to give proper homage to the king. For a kohain, this is a violation of the prohibition of coming in contact with the tumoh emanating from a corpse. The Gemara explains that because there was at least a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the cover of the coffin, there is no Torah level of tumoh. The prohibition is reduced to the Rabbinic level and one may violate a Rabbinic law in order to honor a king properly. The Gemara’s discussion is limited to the tumoh emanating from the corpse itself, but there are other sources of tumoh that are associated with a closed coffin that we will presently learn about. Tosfos wonders why skipping over a coffin is not prohibited on a Torah level, given the presence of other sources of tumoh.The Gemara says in Chulin 72b: The verse says in Bamidbor 19 in the parsha dealing with the various tumos that emanate from a corpse. “וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה -- and whoever will touch on the face of the field” and goes on to enumerate many sources of tumoh. The Gemara concentrates on the meaning of “the face of the field”. R’ Akeevo says that it comes לרבות גולל ודופק to teach us that one who comes in contact with a golail or dofaik also become tomay. What are golail and dofaik? Rashi says that golail is the cover of the coffin and dofaik is the wall of the coffin. What the Gemara is teaching us is that the cover and wall of a coffin are an independent source of tumoh even when not associated with the corpse. We must now re- examine the kohain skipping over the coffins in view of what we have learned about the tumoh emanating from the golail, the coffin cover.This is bewildering, according to Rashi’s explanation, who explained that the meaning of golail is the cover of the coffin. As we learned in a Braiso: “All that will touch on the face of the field” comes to include a cover and a wall of a coffin. And if so, the coffin cover causes tumoh through the process of being similar to a tent1<i class="footnote">There are two forms of tumoh that are called אהל a tent:a) When a person is in the same tent as a corpse, even though he has no physical contact with the corpse he is tomay.b) When a person leans over a corpse he is called מאהיל being an ohel above the corpse, even though he is not under one roof with the corpse, his body is acting as a roof above the corpse and he becomes tomay. Throughout this Tosfos when he mentions ohel we are referring to this second type of ohel.</i> above the coffin cover. And how did they skip over the coffin. Even though the corpse itself is not a source of Torah level tumoh because of the space between the corpse and the cover, the coffin cover itself is a source of tumoh.In Tosfos approach to this issue, he maintains that the cover may indeed be a source of tumoh as we have learned but it does not fall within the parameters of tumoh that are prohibited for a kohain. And we can answer: that there is no difficulty at all. For we have learned in a Braiso in Maseches S’mochos (Perek 4, Halacha 21): Any tumoh for which a nozir does not shave his head, as a nozir is generally required to do when coming in contact with the tumoh of a corpse, a kohain is not prohibited from coming in contact with that source of tumoh. And for the tumoh of a coffin cover and a wall, a nozir is not required to shave his head, as we learned in a Mishna in Maseches Nozir, perek Kohain Godol (54a). We see that although there is a Torah level of tumoh on the coffin cover, it is treated like the tumoh emanating from a dead animal and a kohain may come in with that tumoh.Rabainu Tam is not in agreement with the rule of Maseches S’mochos that the prohibition of tumoh for a kohain is the same as tumoh for which a nozir must shave his head. He holds that our Gemara disagrees with that rule and we must therefore find another way of reconciling our Gemara that says skipping over a coffin does not have any Torah level of tumoh, and the Gemara in Chulin that says, according to Rashi, that a coffin cover has Torah level tumoh. And Rabainu Tam said that the generalization that the prohibition of tumoh for a kohain is in effect only for such tumoh that causes a nozir to shave his head is not so.Our Gemara does not agree with that generalization as Rabainu Tam will now show us. For the Gemara says there (nozir 54a) that for a quarter log of blood from a corpse, a nozir need not shave his head, until there will be a half log, and even so a kohain is forbidden from coming in contact with a quarter log of blood, as we have learned in perek B’haimoh Ham’kashe (Chulin 72a) that a quarter log of blood that comes from two corpses is tomay, even though each corpse only contributed a half of the minimum requirement for tumoh, and that is derived from the verse in Parshas Emor, Vayikro 21, 11, which is discussing the prohibition of tumoh for the Kohain Godol “and he shall not come in contact with any dead person”. The verse uses the words מת נפשות for dead person. Actually the word נפשות is plural. Our Rabanan understood that the plural is used to indicate that even when we have a minimum of one quarter log from two different corpses the tumoh is in effect. In any case we see that the kohain may not come in contact with a quarter log of blood, whereas a nozir is not required to shear for coming in contact with a quarter log of blood. This says Rabainu Tam, is proof that our Gemara does not subscribe to the generalization that a kohain is only forbidden to come in contact with a source of tumoh that causes a nozir to shear.Tosfos remains adamant that the generalization is correct. And one can answer: that there in regard to the quarter log of blood, that Rabainu Tam used as proof that a kohain is prohibited to come in contact with sources of tumoh for which a nozir need not shear, it, blood of a corpse is a tumoh for which the nozir must shave his head, only the amount for which he must shave his head is different, but a coffin cover and wall are not included in the tumoh of a nozir at all, and therefore a kohain is not forbidden to come in contact with them.Tosfos suggest another explanation of the Braiso that teaches that a kohain may not come in contact with a quarter log of blood. Or, perhaps this Braiso that says a Kohain may not come in contact with a quarter log of blood, holds like the Earlier Elders mentioned in Nozir 53a, who said that a quarter log of blood of a corpse also  causes that a nozir must shave his head. According to their opinion a nozir and a kohain are exactly equal. The nozir must shave his head when coming in contact with a quarter log and the kohain is also forbidden from coming in contact with a quarter log of blood.Tosfos is now satisfied with his original answer that a kohain may skip over a coffin and is not violating the laws of tumoh for kohanim, because a coffin cover is not a source of tumoh in regard to the prohibition of a kohain. However, Tosfos has another issue that is troublesome. The corpse is lying in the coffin. It does not cause tumoh because the coffin cover is considered a roof above the corpse, because there is a cubic handbreadth of space and the coffin cover then acts as a separator between the corpse and the person above it. Generally, there is a rule that only things that do not become tomay can act as a barrier against tumoh. If so, how can the coffin cover which does become tomay, even though a kohain is not prohibited from coming in contact with it, be the separator between the corpse and the kohain who is skipping over the coffin.However, this is bewildering, why is the corpse not causing tumoh for the person who is an ohel2<i class="footnote">Explanation follows the emendation of כהן מראה. The difficulty with Rashi is not what he explained in the Gemara there. The Gemara itself that says an animal is sometimes used as a golail is proof that a golail is not a coffin cover.</i> above the corpse, since the coffin cover itself does become tomay? For we have a rule that anything that becomes tomay cannot be a barrier against tumoh. If so, why does the kohain skipping above the coffin not become tomay through the method of ohel? And one can answer: although it is true that the coffin cover is tomay and that tumoh emanates from it, it is only the exterior surface of the coffin cover that is tomay, but the interior, that is exposed to the corpse in the coffin is tohor and can act as a separator between the corpse and the kohain skipping over it.This concept requires proof. As we have learned in Maseches Oholos (perek 15, Mishna 9): a barrel that is full of tohor liquids and is enclosed with a tight cover and it was made a golail for a grave, he who touches it is tomay for seven days as is the rule for anyone contracting tumoh from a corpse related source, and the liquid is tohor, for the inside of the barrel remains tohor. It is clear that the tumoh of golail emanates from the exterior of the golail and not from the interior. The interior can then act as a separator between the corpse and the kohain skipping above it.As we have seen throughout this Tosfos, he has been discussing Rashi’s definition of golail as a coffin cover. Up until this point, Tosfos has adequately defended Rashi’s position. Now, Tosfos finally has a difficulty with Rashi’s explanation that he feels that he cannot answer and he therefore rejects Rashi’s explanation. However, this last question is bewildering according to Rashi’s explanation, from the Gemara in the first perek of Airuvin (15b) that says we do not make from live animals a golail or a dofaik for a grave. And if golail is a coffin cover, does one use a live animal as a coffin cover?Tosfos cannot find a logical explanation for this question and offers another definition for golail. Therefore, Rabainu Tam explained that golail is a monument that is used as a grave marker. In response to the question he asked on Rashi’s explanation, does anybody use an animal as a coffin cover? Rabainu Tam says that according to his definition this is not a problem because it is usual for people to place an animal on the grave as a grave marker until they put a monument on the grave.
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  MOST COFFINS HAVE A HANDBREADTH OF SPACE. This Tosfos will be explained at some future time.
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  [TO] WHAT [PURPOSE] DID THE VERSE STATE: AND HIS SISTER? Within the general discussion of הבריות כבוד the Gemara arrives at the particular issue of burying a dead person who has nobody to bury him. He is in a place where he is not known or very distant from his relatives and they cannot be reached to take care of his needs. At this point he is called a mais mitzvoh. It is a mitzvoh for anybody and everybody to bury him. The Rabanan derive the obligation to bury him from a verse dealing with the laws of a nozir. The Torah writes in Bamidbor 6, 7, כל־ימי הזירו ליהוה על־נפש מת לא יבא -- “all of the days that he is a nozir to Hashem, he shall not come in contact with a corpse”. The Torah is very clear that he may not come in contact with any corpse. This raises a question about the next verse לאביו ולאמו לאחיו ולאחתו לא־יטמא להם במתם -- “To his father and to his mother, to his brother and to his sister, he shall not become tomay to them when they die”. Why did the Torah list all these relatives? The first verse prohibited the nozir from becoming tomay to all people.Why did the Torah have to repeat that he should not become tomay to his close relatives? Our Rabanan understood that the Torah is indicating by mentioning each relative, that one may not become tomay to that relative, but he may become tomay to somebody else. Who is that somebody else? The mais mitzvo. Tosfos will now show us how each and every word in the verse is used to teach us something new. See Artscroll note 33, for a general idea of the material discussed by this Tosfos. In regard to a nozir the Torah writes, “He shall not come in contact with any corpse”.And it is written immediately after that verse, “to his father and to his mother, to his brother and to his sister he shall not become tomay”. And all of these individual relatives are redundant, because they can all be derived from the previous verse; he shall not come in contact with a dead person, which includes all people even his close relatives. Why did the Torah enumerate the close relatives? And we expound the verse as follows: why is “to his father” mentioned? To teach us the rule that he may not become tomay when his father dies, is not necessary, because from “a dead person” it can be learned that a nozir may not become tomay to any person including his close relatives. And the posuk comes only to exclude a mais mitzvoh from the general prohibition, that it is permissible to become tomay to bury him.The Braiso continues expounding the verse: Why is it necessary to state “to his mother”? To teach us the rule that the nozir may not become tomay when his mother dies is not necessary. And to permit the nozir to become tomay to a mais mitzvoh is also not necessary because we have already learned that exclusion from “to his father”. Rather, “to his mother” comes to teach us that if he was a nozir and a kohain, that even when there are two sanctities upon him, the Torah only prohibits him from becoming tomay to his mother but he may become tomay to a mais mitzvoh.The Braiso continues expounding the next word in the verse: Why does the Torah write the word “to his brother”? To teach us the rule that when his brother dies that he may not become tomay is not necessary we already know that from the very first verse. To teach us that a nozir who is a kohain may become tomay to a mais mitzvoh is also not needed because we have learned that from “to his mother”. It comes to teach us that if he was a kohain godol and a nozir whose sanctity is even greater than an ordinary kohain, for even without his being a nozir, it is forbidden for him to become tomay to his relatives. Even so, “to his brother” he may not become tomay but he may become tomay for a mais mitzvoh. The basis for this type of expounding is if this verse is not needed to teach us about one who is only a nozir because that is derived from “to his father” and not for a regular kohain who is a nozir because that is derived from “to his mother”, apply the verse “to his brother” to a kohain godol who is a nozir and it is teaching us that even he may become tomay in order to bury a mais mitzvoh.Tosfos shows us how the final word of the verse is used. Why was it necessary to write “and to his sister”? This is speaking about one who is a kohain godol and a nozir, and he went to slaughter his Pesach sacrifice and to circumcise his son, where there are many mitzvos with which he is occupied, even so “to his sister” he may not become tomay because this would not only violate his many sanctities but would also prevent him from fulfilling all those mitzvos, but he may become tomay to a mais mitzvoh, even though he will not be able to fulfill all those mitzvos.
  YOU SAID: “HE SHALL NOT BECOME IMPURE.”  The Gemara posed a question: if one is on his way to slaughter the Pesach sacrifice and to circumcise his son and he hears that his close relative died, should he return to participate in the funeral or should he proceed to slaughter the Pesach sacrifice and circumcise his son? The Gemara concludes that he should proceed with the Pesach and the circumcision of his son. There are two pints that are unclear:a) Are we discussing the kohain godol who is a nozir and only he must proceed with the Pesach sacrifice, but an ordinary Jew or even a kohain must return for the funeral?b) What is the basis for the decision to continue with the Pesach and not to return for the funeral?Tosfos will shed some light on these questions. Because the Braiso is referring to a person who is a nozir and a kohain godol and he is about to sacrifice the pesach, it concludes that he should not become tomay. It appears that one who is only sacrificing the Pesach, and is not a combined kophain godol and nozir is allowed to become tomay to his relatives.This conclusion is going to be challenged. And this is bewildering. For in Z’vochim (perek 12, 100a) in regard to the story of Yosaif Hakohain whose wife died on Erev Pesach, when the Pesach sacrifice is offered and he did not want to become tomay at her funeral, and his friends caused him to become tomay against his will. And the Gemara there poses a question from this Braiso of our Gemara. That the Braiso says that when faced with this situation one should not become tomay. And what is the question? Perhaps the Braiso rules that he should not go to his relative’s funeral because here the situation is different, because it is speaking of one who has all these sanctities. He is a nozir and a kohain godol, but one who is only sacrificing the Pesach, perhaps he is permitted to become tomay at his relative’s funeral.This question forces Tosfos to reach another conclusion. Because of this it is more sensible to explain that when the Braiso says, will tell you that he should not become tomay, it refers even to one who is only sacrificing a Pesach and is not a kohain godol and a nozir.Now that Tosfos says that the Braiso is ruling in the case of one who is only offering a Pesach sacrifice, and is not a kohain godol and a nozir, that he must also continue with the korbon Pesach, we must know how the Braiso came to this conclusion. And if you ask: from where is it so plain to the Tano, his conclusion that you should say that he may not become tomay. On what halachic analysis is this decision based?And we can answer: The Tano concluded that one should become tomay as Rashi says, that a positive commandment that does not carry the punishment of korais such as becoming tomay at a relatives funeral cannot come and override a  positive commandment that does carry with it a punishment of korais, for example, sacrificing a pesach. And for circumcision as well, there is a possibility of a korais punishment.Tosfos taught us the legal basis for this decision. We must still know how the Gemara in Z’vochim knew that our Braiso was discussing even a case of one who is only sacrificing a korbon Pesach. Perhaps our Braiso was discussing a kohain godol who was also a nozir and is about to offer the korbon Pesach as we originally thought? And if you ask: There in Z’vochim 100a, where the Gemara questions the story of Yosaif Hakohain, whose colleagues forced him to become tomay at his wife’s funeral, and the Gemara, argues that our Braiso supports Yosaif Hakohain, by doing so, we see that the Gemara obviously holds that our Braiso that says one should not become tomay at a relative’s funeral is speaking even of one who is not a kohain godol and a nozir, how did the Gemara there know that this Braiso here is speaking of one who is only occupied with the  korbon Pesach and is not a kohain godol and a nozir?Perhaps the Braiso is speaking of one who has all three sanctities and is also offering a Pesach? And we can answer: That the Gemara in Z’vochim understood that our Braiso is speaking even of one who is only offering a korbon Pesach, because the Braiso did not combine all of the sanctities, when discussing the one who is offering a Pesach as it did when discussing the others.Tosfos illustrates this point: When the Braiso discusses the second level of sanctity, the nozir who is a kohain, the Braiso says: he, who was a nozir and a regular kohain, the Braiso is especially bringing to our attention that we are adding another level of sanctity. For originally he mentioned nozir alone and then afterward when discussing the second level he mentions that there is an additional level of sanctity, he was a nozir and a regular kohain etc. when discussing the additional level of a kohain godol who is a nozir, the Braiso follows the same routine. However, when discussing one who offers a Pesach the Braiso does not mention that he was a kohain godol and a nozir who was offering a Pesach. Since the Braiso did not mention the combination of all these levels of sanctity, the Gemara understood that he is discussing one who is only offering a Pesach and has no other level of sanctity.Ultimately, all these rules are derived from the verse that discusses a nozir. Essentially the nozir is totally unrelated to one who is offering a Pesach. This begs the next question: And if you ask: how did the Braiso know that this verse is discussing one who is offering his Pesach, and one who is about to circumcise his son, the verse is definitely discussing a nozir and not one who is offering a Pesach?Tosfos gives us a classic answer that is used very often in Gemara: And we can answer: that we apply the rule if a verse is not needed to clarify anything more in the rules for the issue of nozir, for there are other verses that teach us that a nozir becomes tomay for a mais mitzvoh, use that not needed verse for the issue of one who has gone to slaughter his Pesach etc. whenever we have a situation that a verse or word in a verse is not needed in the context of the issue under discussion we use that verse to clarify a similar issue where we do not have a local verse. The Rabanan felt that the word ולאחותו was not needed to inform us of any more rules of the nozir and they applied it to a similar situation, one who is about to offer a Pesach and is faced with the burial of a mais mitzvoh.Tosfos rejected Rashi’s explanation that the Braiso was indeed speaking about one who is offering a Pesach who was also a combined nozir and kohain godol. Tosfos said that the Gemara of Yosaif Hakohain seems to say that our Braiso is speaking of one who is not a combined kohain godol and nozir. Tosfos now advances a defense of Rashi’s position. We must keep in mind that the problem posed by the Gemara in Z’vochim is that if our Braiso is discussing an exemption from becoming tomay at a relative’s funeral for one who has all three levels of sanctity and is also in the process of offering a Pesach, how does the Gemara there attempt to show that Yosaif Hakohain was right for not wanting to become tomay at his wife’s funeral. Yosaif Hakohain did not have all three levels of sanctity. He was a regular kohain and he was not a nozir. How could the Gemara in Z’vochim say that Yosaif Hakohain was right based on what we learn from our Braiso?And the Prince of Coucy defends Rashi’s explanation that we are speaking here of one who has all these sanctities, he is a nozir who is a kohain godol. And even so, the Gemara asks there in regard to Yosaif Hakohain that it can be seen from this Braiso that he was correct for not wanting to become tomay at his wife’s funeral on Erev Pesach. For we are compelled to say, that it can be seen from this Braiso that even one who is only offering a Pesach is not allowed to become tomay at a close relative’s funeral. For if it enters upon our minds that one who offers a Pesach may become tomay to relatives, why does the word ולאחותו need to be said to teach us that one who is offering a Pesach may become tomay for a mais mitzvoh? Since he can become tomay for his relatives, we see that the status of one who is offering a Pesach does not place any special stringency on him. If so, it is clear that he should become tomay to a mais mitzvoh.This makes sense when discussing one who is only occupied with offering a Pesach, but since we are discussing one who is a kohain godol and a nozir perhaps a verse may be needed to teach us that with all these sanctities he still must become tomay to a mais mitzvoh. And if you should argue that it may very well be that a person who is in the process of offering a Pesach may be allowed to become tomay to close relatives, but even so the verse ולאחותו is needed to teach us that one may become tomay to a mais mitzvoh because the Braiso is discussing one who has three sanctities. That he is a nozir, a kohain and is offering a Pesach. We need a verse to teach us that even if he has all three sanctities he must become tomay to a mais mitzvoh but in reality I can tell you that one who is only offering a Pesach may become tomay to his relatives.That is not so, for we gave already learned from ולאחיו ולאמו לאביו that  being  a  nozir  and  a  kohain  godol  has  no  effect  on  one’s obligation to become tomay to a mais mitzvoh. Even though one has all these sanctities he must become tomay to a mais mitzvoh. If so, we are compelled to say that the last verse ולאחותו is only needed to teach us the higher level of Pesach, and why is that necessary? It is clear that if one may become tomay for close relatives, he may certainly become tomay for a mais mitzvoh.This argument that we see that each of the sanctities independently does not prevent one from becoming tomay to a mais mitzvoh and therefore collectively they also cannot prevent one from becoming tomay to a mais mitzvoh is subject to rebuttal as Tosfos will now demonstrate. We do see in the Braiso that although we know that with one sanctity one is required to become tomay to a mais mitzvoh we still need a second verse to teach us that when one has two sanctities he must become tomay to a mais mitzvoh.This seems to refute what Tosfos is now saying. And even though the verse ולאמו is required to teach us that a regular kohain who is a nozir must become tomay for a mais mitzvoh, even though the verse says that a regular kohain must become tomay for his close relatives, and we require a second verse for when there are two sanctities, even though we have already learned that the higher level of nozir does not have any effect on one’s obligation to bury a mais mitzvoh from the word לאביו. We see that when there are two sanctities even though one of them does not prevent one from becoming tomay to a mais mitzvoh and the second one doesn’t even prevent one from becoming tomay to close relatives, we still require a verse to teach us that when they combine one must also become tomay to a mais mitzvoh.Tosfos says that despite this argument, his position about one who is offering a Pesach is correct and a verse will not be needed to teach us that when one who is offering a Pesach combines with the other sanctities he must become tomay to mais mitzvoh. This statement is correct when we are discussing a kohain whose sanctity is eternal, and for this reason we could say that when he has two sanctities a kohain and a nozir that he is even more sanctified and may be forbidden from becoming tomay for a mais mitzvoh, and that is why we need a second verse. However, one who is offering a Pesach, whose sanctity is only temporary, if you permit him to become tomay for close relatives; the same should be true for a mais mitzvoh by a kal v’chomer. For why do you perceive that you should give him greater sanctity as regards a mais mitzvoh, and not allow him to become tomay to the mais mitzvoh, more so than for his relatives for whom he is permitted to become tomay?Or perhaps we may briefly explain what can be learned from the Braiso. from the fact that the Braiso first speaks of a nozir alone and then of a nozir who is also a regular kohain and then about a nozir who is a kohain godol, we see that the Braiso was speaking of situations that are increasingly more likely for one not to become tomay to a mais mitzvoh. If so, logically we should say that one who is offering a Pesach, who is presented last, which indicates that his is the highest level of sanctity may not become tomay to close relatives just as the nozir and the others. And deduce this matter on your own and you will see that this line of reasoning is correct.
  
  Daf 20a
  
  
  
  Daf 20b
  
  
  
  Daf 21a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  AND PRAYER, [WHICH IS A MATTER] IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY ETC. In the Gemara we have a dispute between Ravina and Rav Chisda. Ravina understands from our Mishna that when one thinks the words of sh’ma, he fulfills his obligation of reciting the sh’ma by Torah law. Rav Chisda disagrees. He holds that the words must be spoken and if one only thinks the words he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: if so, why does the Mishna advise the baal keri to think the words of sh’ma? And the Gemara answered that it is improper that all of the congregation should be reciting sh’ma and he should sit there idly. He should at least be thinking of the sh’ma that the congregation is saying. The Gemara now asks another question: we have learned that he does not even think of the words of the sh’moneh esray. Why not? Shouldn’t he participate with the congregation? Tosfos wonders why the Gemara suddenly decided to ask its question from the fact that he does not participate in the sh’moneh esray. There are other b’rachos besides the shmoneh esray in which he does not participate.And if you ask: why did the Gemara depart from the segment of the Mishna about reading sh’ma that he was discussing in order to show that there are areas where the congregation is involved with a mitzvoh and the baal keri does not participate? For within the segment dealing with sh’ma there is also something that the congregation is occupied with, the brochos of sh’ma and the Mishna taught: he does not recite the b’rocho preceding and following the sh’ma etc. Why are these b’rochos not used as a basis for the question the Gemara is now asking, that  we see there  are things that the congregation is involved in and the baal keri does not participate with them. Why did the Gemara have to prove his point from the Mishna dealing with shmoneh esray?And we can answer: because there is greater point that can be made by asking the question from the shmoneh esray, that is why the Gemara uses it as a basis for the question. That point is, that even though shmoneh esray is recited while standing and it can be seen by all present that he, the baal keri, is not standing as they, the congregation, are standing, even so if he did not begin to recite shmoneh esray, he should not begin. It is more evident from the fact that the baal keri does not recite the shmoneh esray, that we are not concerned that he should participate with the congregation.Tosfos now turns to another issue. The Gemara asks a series of questions about Rav Chisda’s opinion that thinking is not equal to speaking. Those very same questions can be asked to Ravino as well. And if you ask: since the Gemara did not know the reason mentioned soon to differentiate between reading sh’ma, Birchas Hamozon and shmoneh esray, these questions that were asked to Rav Chisda can also be asked to Ravino as well. What is the difference between reciting sh’ma, Birchas Hamozon that the baal keri is required to say them more so than shmoneh esray?And we can answer: that according to Ravino it makes sense. Since thinking is equivalent to speaking, and the baal keri will fulfill his obligation by thinking the words, we should require him to recite sh’ma and birchas hamozon which are Torah obligations more so than shmoneh esray which is Rabbinic. However according to Rav Chisda, since thinking the words is actually useless and he does not fulfill any mitzvoh by Torah law, and he is required to think the words only so that he should not sit idly while the congregation is involved with sh’ma, the Gemara asks, what is the difference between reciting sh’ma and sh’moneh esray?
  HOWEVER, [IF] HE DID NOT [YET] BEGIN, [THEN] HE SHOULD NOT BEGIN. The Gemara is proving from the statement that the baal keri began to recite shmoneh esray shouls shorten his prayer, that if he did not begin at all he should not begin. This is presented as proof that a baal keri is not required to even think the words of shmoneh esray. And if you ask: I can say that the Mishna that indicates that the baal keri should not begin to recite shmoneh esray is discussing saying the words, but as far as thinking the words is concerned that is acceptable even for the baal keri.And we can answer: That it appears that the baal keri should not begin to even think the words of shmoneh esray, since the Mishna when telling us how he must behave when he made the error of starting to pray does not say that he should shorten his saying of the words or he may think the words at length. If he would be required to think the words of shmoneh esray, when he began to say them the Mishna should have suggested that he may think all the words of the shmoneh esray. Since the Mishna does not mention thinking at all, it is obvious that it is not an option.
  
  Daf 21b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  BEFORE THE PRAYER LEADER REACHES <i>MODIM</i>. One who walks into a synagogue and finds the congregation in middle of shmoneh esray, should only begin to say shmoneh esray if he can finish before the chazon reaches modim. And the reason that he should not begin unless he can finish before the chazon reaches modim is because he must bow for modim together with the congregation, so that it should not appear by his not bowing that he denies the G-d to whom the congregation is bowing. And the ruling is the same that he may begin sh’moneh esray if he will reach modim when the chazon reaches modim, since he will bow together with his neighbors. However the Gemara does not mention this because this situation that one may calculate that he is going to arrive at modim together with the congregation is not definite.But it does not appear that because one who starts shmoneh esray who will not finish before the chazon reaches modim will not be able to say modim of the Rabanan is the reason that Rav Huno said this, for it is a mitzvoh to respond with modim of the Rabanan, however, it is not likely that this is the reason because we do not find  any mention of it, modim of the Rabanan, in the Gemara. Since this prayer is not mentioned in the Gemara it is unlikely that one should not start saying shmoneh esray because he might miss this prayer.
  
  Daf 22a
  
  
  
  Daf 22b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  LET US EXAMINE HOW EZRA INSTITUTED [THIS ORDINANCE]. There are many disagreements throughout the entire Gemara about Rabbinic enactments. The Gemara almost never suggests – let us see how the original ruling was instituted. Tosfos explains why the Gemara suggests that here. In many places in regard to other Rabbinic enactments the Gemara does not ask this question, but here it is different because it is something that regularly occurs every day, therefore we remember the nature of the original enactment.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  THE HALAKHA IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS [OPINION]. The Gemara related that Rav Chomo immersed himself in a mikvoh of forty s’ah on erev pesach before he would recite the Hagodoh for others. (It was the custom that only the leader of the seder said the Hagodoh, the others fulfilled their obligation by listening to him, via the process of - listening is the equivalent of saying.) Obviously he holds that when he is learning Torah himself it is not required to immerse in a mikvoh, rather pouring nine kav of water upon a person is sufficient. The Gemara concludes that the halochoh is not in accordance with Rav Chomo. Tosfos explores exactly which facet of Rav Chomo’s is not in accordance with the halochoh. The halochoho is not that immersion every day1<i class="footnote">There is some difficulty with the text of the Tosfos. On the surface it appears that Rav Chomo require immersion when one is a baal keri on any day in forty s’ah. From the Gemara it would seem that the opposite is true. Rav Chomo himself immersed in a mikvoh of forty s’ah only erev pesach. When Tosfos uses the words אלא אפילו לאחרים, it seems that Tosfos had previously been speaking about requiring immersion in forty s'ah, when immersing in order to recite Torah for others. This concurs with our text of the Gemara.</i> must be in a mikvoh of forty s’ah, rather even when one wants to recite words of Torah for the benefit of others it is sufficient to use nine kav.According to this understanding we are only rejecting the special stringency of immersing in a mikvoh of forty s’ah, when reciting Torah for others. The enactment that one must use at least nine kav of water remains in full force. Alternatively, this is the explanation, and the halochoh is not like him, Rav Chomo, rather like R’ Yehudoh B’ Bsairoh who says that words of Torah do not become tomay and there is no need for any washing whatsoever, even nine kav.According to this understanding the Gemara is ruling that the enactment of Ezra is not in effect at all. There are those who say that there is a remnant of Ezra’s enactment. And there are those who say that it is exclusively for Torah learning, that we say the enactment of Ezra is no longer in effect, but for praying, immersion is required. And the R’I explained that there is no difference and for prayer as well, immersion is not required.Tosfos now examines a custom that was prevalent in his times. And one who immerses himself on Erev Yom Kipur2<i class="footnote">The Tur cites this custom and says it is based on Pirkay d’R’ Eliezer, who says that on Yom Kipur we must be pure as the ministering angels. It has therefore become the custom to immerse one's self Erev Yom Kipur.</i> should not recite a blessing. And one who does recite a blessing, the b’rocho is in vain.
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  THE SACRIFICE OF THE WICKED IS AN ABOMINATION. When Raboh said that when one finds excrement in the area where he was praying, even though he sinned by not checking out in advance that it was free of excrement, his prayer is still a prayer. Rovo asks: but we have learned (Mishlay 21, 27) the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination. The Gemara’s question seems to encompass any situation where one found excrement where he prayed. R’I tells us that this is not so. R’I says that his prayer is an abomination only in a place where he should have had a doubt and assumed that there is excrement1<i class="footnote">See Rosh Simon 22, where he cites Rabainu Yonoh who says that this can be seen from the Gemara earlier. When discussing one who discovered excrement while praying, the Braiso says that he should move to a position where the excrement is behind him or to his side. The Braiso does not say that he must repeat his prayers. This must be because the Braiso is discussing a place where one need not consider the likelihood of finding excrement. The dispute between Raboh and Rovo is speaking where the likelihood of finding excrement should be considered.</i> in that place. Otherwise his prayer is not an abomination and he certainly need not pray again.
  ALTHOUGH HE PRAYED, HIS PRAYER IS AN ABOMINATION. What is the ruling in this case where the prayer is deemed an abomination? And it is a “twisted thing that cannot be straightened” (Koheles 1, 15), in other words he cannot recite the prayer again. He therefore cannot correct the “twisted thing”. And R’I says that he should repeat the prayer once again.1<i class="footnote">Most poskim accept this onion including the Shulchan Aruch Orac Chaim 76, 8.</i>
  
  Line 18
  
  [HE] WAITS UNTIL THE URINE CEASES. We will learn later that when one prays in the presence of urine his prayer is invalid. If so, how can the Braiso say that after he finishes urinating he may continue his prayers? The Braiso is speaking of when one is urinating on the earth or on clothing, and the area where the urine is falling is not damp enough to moisten something that comes in touches that area as can be understood from the Gemara later on 25a. For example the flow of the urine was drop by drop so that they are immediately absorbed in the ground or clothing. So did Horav R’ Yosaif explain our Gemara so that it should not contradict the later Gemara that says that one may not pray in the presence of urine. That Gemara is speaking where the urine is moist enough to moisten something else and our Gemara is speaking where there is not enough to moisten something else.However, it makes more sense to say, that even if there is sufficient urine to make the area moist enough to moisten something else, it is permitted to continue praying. Since by Torah law it is only prohibited to pray opposite the flow of urine, as one is urinating, and it is the Rabanan who decreed the prohibition to recite Torah in the presence of urine even when one is not urinating. And since in this Braiso, he is already standing in middle of his prayer, the Rabanan did not trouble him to repeat his prayer.
  
  Daf 23a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  RATHER, EVERYONE AGREES HE RETURNS TO THE BEGINNING. The Gemara here is dealing with someone who is involved in a mitzvoh and paused while in middle of the mitzvoh for as long as it would take to complete the mitzvoh. There has been a major pause in middle of the mitzvoh. Do we say that the beginning of the mitzvoh and the end do not connect together as one long mitzvoh or perhaps the length of time over which one extends the performance of the mitzvoh makes no difference? The Gemara suggested that perhaps Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuno are arguing this issue. The Gemara concludes that both would agree that if one paused for sufficient time to complete the mitzvoh he would have to repeat the entire mitzvoh, but here they argue about a different issue. Whether one who started his prayer when he felt the urge to urinate is eligible to pray or not. Note, that when the Gemara said all agree that one who pauses long enough to complete sh’moneh esray does have to start at the beginning again, the Gemara could just as easily have said that all agree that when one pauses long enough to complete sh’moneh esray he does not need to repeat the prayer again and may continue from where he stopped. Generally, when the Gemara assumes one side of an argument when it could have just as easily mentioned the other side and say that all agree that he does not have to start again, it is an indication that the Gemara favors that opinion as halochoh. Tosfos will elaborate on this point. And it is true that the Gemara could have set up its answer by saying that all agree that one need not return to the beginning. Since the Gemara does not set up its answer in this way, we see from this that the halochoh is that one must return to the beginning.Tosfos offers another proof to his conclusion that the halochoh is that one must return to the beginning. And so too, later (24b)1<i class="footnote">The Gemara relates that R’ Abuhu was walking behind R’ Yoconon in a filthy alleyway. He stopped reciting sh’ma, and the asked R’ Yochonon, if he must return to the beginning. R’ Yochonon answered that he must. See the Gemara there for the exact circumstances.</i> R’ Abuhu says that one must return to the beginning.Tosfos will now show that there are contradictions to this conclusion. And this is bewildering for in Maseches Rosh Hashonoh (34b) R’ Yochonon says that if one heard nine blasts of the shofor extended over nine hours of the day, even though there obviously had to be a pause much greater than the time usually required to blow nine t’keeos, he has fulfilled his obligation. We see that those t’keeos that were blown over nine hours combine to complete a mitvoh even though he paused for sufficient time to do all of them, the nine t’keeos.Tosfos offers a second Gemara that indicates that even though there was a major pause during the mitzvoh, one fulfills his obligation. And so too, in Megiloh (18b) the Gemara also says: Rav said the halochoh is not like Rav Muno who says that if one paused long enough to complete the Megiloh, he must return to the beginning. Because the Gemara says there, in reference to a dispute among the amoraim about what Rav’s opinion was, take hold of Rav Baiboi who says that Rav said the halochoh is not like Rav Muno, in your hand.We now have two Gemaras that indicate that when one pauses long enough to complete a mitzvoh he must return to the beginning. Our Gemara here and the Gemara on 24b where R’ Abuhu says the same. We have two Gemaras that indicate the exact opposite. The Gemara in Rosh Hashonoh 34b, that discusses blowing the shofor over an extended period and the Gemara in Megiloh 18b that speaks of reading the Megiloh with a major interruption. How can we reconcile these contradictory Gemaros? And the prince of Coucy says that we can differentiate, between the contradictory Gemaras. For here in our Gemara in regard to one who urinated while praying who cannot recite sh’ma while urinating. His ceasing to recite the sh’ma is an interruption because he was not allowed to continue reading. So too, later (24b) where the Gemara is speaking about R’ Abuhu who was walking through filthy alleyways, there where he was not allowed to continue reciting sh’ma while in those alleyways, all agree that he must return to the beginning of sh’ma, since he was required to stop his recital of the sh’ma. However, when the person is eligible, such as by the Gemara discussing a pause while reading the Megiloh and the blowing of the shofor, all agree that he need not return to the beginning, rather, he returns to the place where he stopped. Since there was no need to pause, his voluntary pausing does not constitute an interruption.Tosfos suggest another solution to the contradictory Gemaras. Our original argument was that the Gemara here could just as easily have said that all agree that after an interruption one need not return to the beginning, and the issue would be if when he started praying while he had the urge to urinate, is he eligible to pray or not. Rabainu Yehudoh disagrees with the idea that the Gemara could just as easily have said that all agree that one need not return to the beginning. And Rabainu Yehudoh explained that here the Gemara could not have possibly said that all agree that one who paused for sufficient time to complete the mitzvoh need not return to the beginning, and that their disagreement would be when he did not2<i class="footnote">See Rabainu Yonoh who when quoting Tosfos says that the argument would have been when he did not pause long enough to complete the entire shmoneh esray. Tiferes Shmuel favors this text and we have followed it in our interpretation of Tosfos.</i> pause for a long time, and the issue would be if it is considered an interruption because he was not eligible to pray. Because all would agree that he is considered eligible to recite the sh’ma even though he had the urge to urinate when he started praying and he knew that he would not be able to complete the sh’moneh esray, since the rule is that he never returns to the beginning of his prayer3<i class="footnote">Rabainu Yehudoh seems to understand that when the Gemara speaks of one who has the urge to urinate as being eligible or ineligible, it all centers around whether he will be able to complete the sh’moneh esray or not. He is considered eligible because he can complete the sh’moneh esray. He is considered ineligible because he cannot complete the sh’moneh esray. If so, when we say that no matter how long one paused, he may complete the sh’moneh esray, then there is no longer a situation of being ineligible to start the sh’moneh esray, because one will always be able to complete the sh’moneh esray. The prince of Coucy may have understood that the eligibility or ineligibility is based on a totally different thought. He sees that the ineligibility is because it is not proper to pray when one feels the urge to urinate. It has nothing to do with whether one will be able to complete the sh’moneh esray or not. It is the very fact that he has the urge that renders him ineligible. Even if one holds that one who paused in middle of sh’moneh esaray long enough to complete need not return to the beginning may hold that one who has the urge to urinate is ineligible.</i> when he pauses during prayer for longer than it takes to complete the prayer, no other pausing for whatever reason, such as urine dribbling on his legs is considered an interruption. However, if the Gemara could have said so, that all agree that one who pauses in middle of shmoneh esray need not return to the beginning he certainly would have said it.4<i class="footnote">According to Rabainu Yehudoh our Gemara is no proof at all that we hold that one who pauses long enough to complete sh’moneh esray must return to the beginning. But what about the Gemara on 24b that Tosfos quoted earlier. See Rosh who shows that the Gemara on 24b is only presenting the opinion of R’ Abuhu, but his teacher R’ Yochonon holds otherwise and we always follow the opinion of a teacher against his student.</i> Hence, there is no proof from our Gemara that it holds that the halochoh is that one who pauses long enough to complete a mitzvoh must return to the beginning of that mitzvoh.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  WE ARE CONCERNED LEST HE WILL DEFECATE WITH THEM ON: IT IS FORBIDDEN. Rovo says that one may not wear t’filin when urinating in an established latrine because we are concerned that he may defecate while adorned with the t’filin. Tosfos points out that this concern is only true in an established latrine where people usually go to defecate. And specifically in an established latrine we are concerned that he might defecate while adorned with the t’filin, but in a temporary latrine, where it is not usual to defecate it is permitted to urinate while adorned with the t’filin and we are not concerned that he might defecate while wearing t’filin.And that which we learned in a Braiso that one may not urinate while wearing them even in a temporary latrine, is not a contradiction to what we have just said, that is specifically speaking about when one is holding the t’filin in his hands as he urinates, because then we are concerned that he might rub away the droplets of urine if they dripped on his clothing, with the t’filin in his hands. That is certainly an inappropriate thing to do. Or perhaps he may touch his male organ, which is certainly inappropriate while holding t’filin in one’s hand.However, when one is wearing t’filin there is no concern that he might rub away the droplets with the t’filin because they are not in his hand and therefore, in a temporary latrine where there is no concern that he might defecate while wearing t’filin, he may urinate.1<i class="footnote">This is Tosfos opinion. The Rambam disagrees. See Shulchan Oruch chapter 43,1, for his decision in this halochoh.</i>
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  SMALL SEALED VESSELS PROTECT [EVEN INSIDE] A TENT OVER A CORPSE. Rav Ashee is proving that a vessel that has less than a tefach of space is also considered a vessel and t’filin can be placed in such a vessel. They are then thought of as being in a separate area and then can be placed on the floor. He proves his point from the fact that an earthenware vessel, even less than a tefach, that is enclosed with a lid protects food that is in it from becoming tomay. This proves that theses small vessels are legally capable of separating that which is in them from the surrounding area. There is another way of viewing this phenomenon. One can argue that the reason the food inside does not become tomay is because it is as if it is totally surrounded by material that cannot be penetrated by tumoh. An earthenware vessel does not become tomay from the outside. If so, it may be that a vessel that is smaller than a tefach is not considered a vessel at all, but as far as tuimoh is concerned the earthenware material that is wrapped around it prevents tumoh from penetrating.However, this reasoning would not allow us to put t’filin on the floor. Wrapping the t’filin in a wrapper does not separate the t’filin from the surrounding area; it is only being in a vessel that can accomplish such a separation. Tosfos needs to show that even in as far as tumoh is concerned, it is the fact that the food is in a vessel that saves it from becoming tomay, not the fact that it is wrapped in material that resists the penetration of tumoh. And we are compelled to say that the reason a vessel protects food from becoming tomay is because of the airspace1<i class="footnote">Tosfos uses the word אויר which literally means air as if it meant the space of the air in the vessel. As we explain in the Tosfos it is not merely the earthen material of the vessel that protects food from tumoh, but the fact that it is a vessel that consists of material and airspace.</i> of the vessel. For if there was no airspace in the vessel they would not protect from tumoh at all. For if there was no airspace in the vessel and the material of the vessels was wrapped around the food like a wrapper that would be the equivalent of food that was kneaded with mire that do become tomay when in the tent of a corpse.It is clear that it is not the earthen material that protects the food from becoming tomay, because we see that when we have the material wrapped around the food in a non-vessel form, the food does become tomay. It is the element of being in a vessel that protects the food from becoming tomay. We can now understand Rav Ashee’s proof from the food that is protected from tumoh by being in a vessel. Since it is because it is in a vessel that it is protected from tumoh, so too, the t’filin when placed in a vessel are separate from the surrounding area and they may be placed on the floor.
  
  Daf 23b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  MATTERS WHICH I PERMITTED YOU HERE ETC. The Gemara says that one is allowed to carry t’filin into an established latrine and hold them in his hand while he urinates. In a Braiso quoted in the Gemara we find that it is prohibited to hold t’filin in one’s hands as he urinates. Rovo says that the Braiso is the opinion of Bais Shamai and that Bais Hilel disagrees with that Braiso and we follow Bais Hilel. The Gemara questions Rovo’s interpretation of the Braiso. Its question hinges upon another quotation from a Braiso about the contrast of laws in different latrines.The Braiso says: “Things that I have permitted for you here, I have prohibited there”. The Gemara seems to understand that “here”, means an established latrine and “there”, refers to a temporary latrine. Based on this understanding the Gemara attempts to disprove Rovo. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara is so sure that “here” refers to an established latrine and “there” refers to a temporary latrine, perhaps the reverse is true.When faced with the Braiso that says that what I have permitted “here” I have prohibited “there”, the Gemara does not want to answer that things that I have permitted “here”, in a temporary latrine, I have prohibited “there”, in an established latrine, which would refer to the ruling that it is prohibited to defecate while wearing t’filin on one’s head in an established latrine, but it is permitted to urinate in a temporary latrine.Because, we do not find that ruling in a Braiso, and it is therefore difficult to say that this Braiso is referring to that ruling. However, this rule about exposing a tefach or two t’fochim in a latrine, we do find openly in a Braiso, and that is why the Gemara does not hesitate to suggest that the Braiso is referring to that ruling. HoRav R’ Yosaif is the author of this Tosfos. 
  
  Daf 24a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  DIDN’T RABBI ḤIYYA TEACH [THAT] HE PLACES THEM IN A POUCH, UNDER HIS HEAD? R’ Yirmiyoh said that one places his t’filin between the mattress and the pillow not directly opposite his head. The Gemara challenges R’ Yirmiyoh from the Braiso of R’ Chiyo that says he places the t’filin in a pouch under his pillow. And if you ask: I can say that there is no contradiction from the Braiso to R’ Yirmiyoh because the Braiso is speaking of where the t’filin is in a pouch that is not directly opposite his head. I can prove that this is an acceptable answer to the Gemara’s challenge for in the Braiso quoted earlier (23b) it also says that t’filin can be placed under his pillow and the Gemara does not challenge R’ Yirmiyoh from that Braiso, because the Gemara is aware that we can explain that the Braiso is speaking of putting the t’filin not directly opposite his head. Why didn’t the Gemara seem to know that we can use the same answer in reference to R’ Chiyo’s Braiso? And the Rav says: that if so, that R’ Chiyo’s Braiso is speaking of where the t’filin are not directly opposite his head why does he speak about placing them in a pouch, even without a pouch it should also be permitted to place t’filin not directly opposite his head. Rather we can see from this that it is speaking even where the t’filin are opposite his head. That is why this Braiso of R’ Chiyo contradicts R’ Yirmiyoh who says that one must place t’filin not directly opposite his head, whereas the previous Braiso that does not mention a pouch is not a contradiction to R’ Yirmiyoh.However, in any case we remain with a problem, the Gemara should answer the challenge from R’ Chiyo’s Braiso by saying that the Braiso is speaking of when his wife is with him, where it is required that the t’filin be placed in a vessel within another vessel. That is why the Braiso speaks of a pouch even though it will be placed not directly opposite his head and it presents no contradiction to R’ Yirmiyoh at all. And the issue requires contemplation.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  TWO INDIVIDUALS SLEEPING IN A SINGLE BED. See Artscroll note 11. Tosfos here is referring to the Gemara on 25b that teaches that when one’s ervoh is exposed it is forbidden to recite the sh’ma. There are various degrees of exposure as will be discussed in the Gemara there. And if you ask:  How can he possibly be permitted to recite sh’ma, but he sees his own ervoh.1<i class="footnote">This word ערוה when used in this context generally means one’s naked genitals.</i>And we can answer: that he puts his head out of the blanket. And if you ask: but his heart sees the ervoh? And we can answer: that this Tano holds that when one’s heart exposed to the ervo it is permissible to recite sh’ma. The rule that one may not recite sh’ma when his heart is exposed to ervo is the subject of a dispute. This Tano may hold like the opinion that is lenient in this matter. Alternatively, he is separating between his ervoh and his heart by holding his garment opposite his heart.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  WASN’T IT TAUGHT: ONE WHO IS SLEEPING IN BED AND HIS CHILDREN ETC.? The Gemara is dealing with the question of whether one may recite sh’ma when he is in a bed with another person and they are both naked. They are facing away from each other. Shmuel says that it is permissible even if the other person is his wife. Rav Yosaif argues that it is more likely that it is permitted with his wife, since one’s wife is like his self, he is accustomed to being with her and is not as likely to have improper thoughts when in contact with her. The Gemara presents two contradictory Braisos on this subject and suggests that this makes sense according to Rav Yosaif who says that one is permitted to say sh’ma when the other person is his wife, and he is not permitted to say sh’ma when there is another man in his bed.However, Shmuel who says that it is always permitted, even when there is another man in his bed is contradicted by the Braiso that says it is forbidden. Shmuel wants to show that Rav Yosaif’s position is also the subject of a dispute and presents a third Braiso that indicates that it is forbidden to say sh’ma even when the other person is his wife. There is major confusion about the proper text of the Braisos involved. You can see that Tosfos begins with a quotation that is different than the Gemara as we have it printed. In the second Braiso that prohibits reciting sh’ma the text is הישן במטה ובניו ובני ביתו בצדו – הרי זה לא יקרא קריאת שמע One who was sleeping in bed and his sons and members of his household are with him – he should not recite sh’ma.In the Third Braiso we have the text  היה ישן במטה ובניו ובני ביתו במטה  –  לא יקרא קריאת שמע  These  texts  are almost identical. Rashi says that in the second Braiso is not referring to his wife and in the third Braiso the same words are referring to his wife. Tosfos understands that according to Rashi the second and third Braisos are one and the same, it is juat that the Gemara originally understood that בני ביתו does not refer to his wife and when presented another time the Gemara means to say that those words do refer to his wife. Tosfos is not satisfied with this explanation and chooses to revise the text of the third Braiso.Rashi explained that the Braiso means that one’s wife is included in the members of his household. And this is not clear for a number of reasons. First, because we do not find that one’s wife is called בני ביתו the members of his household.1<i class="footnote">See the notes of R’ Akeevo Eiger who challenges Tosfos on this point.</i>And furthermore, according to his explanation that the third Braiso is actually one and the same as the second, when the Gemara presents this Braiso the Gemara should have said: and we learned in this Braiso, since the Gemara is referring to the second Braiso mentioned earlier.2<i class="footnote">See פני יהושע who says that Rashi also holds that this is a third Braiso. There is a minor variation in the text of the second and third Braisos. In the first Braiso we read בצדו at his side. This does not refer to a wife since it is rather impersonal. In the third Braiso the text is במטה which is more fitting for a wife. Also, in the second Braiso, the ruling is qualified by, “if they were minors”. This qualification is sensible if we are not discussing his wife. The next Braiso does not mention that if they were minors the rule changes, because one who marries a minor is obviously attracted to her despite her being a minor and the prohibition against reciting sh’ma when she is in his bed would be in effect, even if she was a minor.</i>But since the Gemara does say “and we learned in a Braiso” it appears that this is a different, third, Braiso. And the Rav Horav Yosaif says that our text in this third Braiso is: if he was sleeping in a bed and his wife was sleeping at his side, he should not turn his face away from his wife and recite sh’ma, unless a garment is separating between him and her. Obviously, according to this text it is extremely clear that the question raised is about one’s wife.
  
  Daf 24b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  [HE] FEELS FOR IT [AND REMOVES IT] WITH HIS GARMENT. The Gemara is listing the activities Rebbe engaged in while praying. Rashi explained that the purpose of handling his garment was to remove a louse that was biting him. The second statement but he did not wrap himself in his Talis if his Talis fell off during sh’moneh esray is an independent statement. And they are two separate things.And Rabainu Chananel said that they are one item. This means: he handled his garment, he fixed the garment so that it should not fall off his head, but if it fell off his head he would not wrap himself in it once again for that would be an interruption, if he would wrap himself in the Talis since it fell off entirely. However, to reposition it slightly so that it should not fall is not an interruption.This is a short prayer excusing oneself for behaving albeit inadvertently, in an unfitting way while addressing Hashem in prayer. At what point in the prayer does he say this? Immediately, in middle of his prayer, and afterwards he begins from the point that he interrupted the prayer.R’ Abuhu was following behind R’ Yochonon in a filthy alleyway. R’ Abuhu stopped reciting sh’ma, because he holds that one may not recite sh’ma in a filthy alleyway. When he passed out of the alleyway he asked R’ Yochonon if he must begin sh’ma again or he may return to where he stopped. R’ Yochonon answered, I do not agree with what you did, but according to your behavior you must start sh’ma from the beginning. About what particular aspect of R’ Abuhu’s deeds did R’ Yochonon disapprove?The explanation of R’ Yochonon’s disapproval is because of two issues. First, that I hold that following even a prolonged interruption one need not return to the beginning.1<i class="footnote">See Maharsho, who asks that Tosfos is contradicting what he said earlier in the name of the Prince of Coucy. There Tosfos concluded that if one is forced to interrupt the performance of a mitzvoh, R’ Yochonon agrees that the interruption negates the fulfillment of the mitzvoh. It is only when one voluntarily extends the mitzvoh that R’ Yochonon says that an interruption does not negate the mitzvoh. If so, how can Tosfos present R’ Yochonon’s opinion about the interruption of our Gemara where it seems that R’ Abuhu’s stopping to recite sh’ma was not voluntary but because he found himself in a filthy alleyway. The Maharsho explains that this is truly what Tosfos means when he says the second reason why R’ Yochonon did not agree with R’ Abuhu’s behavior is that he holds that one need not stop reciting sh’ma in a filthy alleyway and R’ Abuhu’s stopping is actually voluntary and therefore the interruption does not negate the fulfillment of the mitzvoh. Maharsho explains that according to this understanding we must say that when Tosfos says at the outset that R’ Yochonon disagreed with R’ Abuhu for two reasons, Tosfos does not mean that each one independently is sufficient to disapprove of R’ Abuhu’s deeds. What he meant was that because of the combination of these two reasons he did not approve of R’ Abuhu’s deeds. First, because R’ Yochonon holds that a voluntary interruption does not negate a mitzvoh. Second, this is a voluntary interruption because one may recite sh’ma in a filthy alleyway by covering his mouth. See פני יהושע who disagrees with Maharsho’s approach. He says that Tosfos here is following the opinion of Rabainu Yehudoh cited in that Tosfos, who disagrees with the Prince of Coucy. Perhaps Maharsho here felt that it is evident that Tosfos is following the Prince of Coucy, because Tosfos here says after presenting his second reason, that I, R’ Yochonon hold that you, R’ Abuhu did not need to stop and therefore you need not return to the beginning, but since you hold that you did have to stop, you must return to the beginning. This is logical according to the Prince of Coucy, because if he had to stop, the interruption is not voluntary and then one must return to the beginning. However, according to Rabainu Yehudoh, one never needs to return to the beginning even if the interruption was involuntary. Why then does Tosfos say that according to R’ Abuhu who holds that he had to stop, he must return to the beginning? The Maharsho therefore favors his understanding that the two reasons of Tosfos must combine as one so that R’ Abuhu did not need to return to the beginning according to R’ Yochonon and that he did have to return to the beginning according to his own opinion.</i> We find that R’ Yochonon says (Rosh Hashonoh 34b) if one heard nine t’keeos, blasts of the shofor, extended over nine hours even though there certainly must have been an interruption long enough to complete the mitzvoh he has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, there is no need for you to start the sh’mna again.And furthermore, I hold that while one is in a filthy alleyway, he may place his hand on his mouth and continue reciting sh’ma.And if so, he, R’ Abuhu was eligible to recite sh’ma, even while in the alleyway and it was not necessary for him to stop at all. However, according to your thinking that you hold you were obliged to stop etc. you are obligated to start at the beginning.
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  WITH ROPES OF VANITY. The prophet bemoans those who draw sin upon themselves through “ropes that are שוא”. The word שוא usually means for naught. Rashi here says that the Gemara means that he will be punished for his even for his inappropriate speech. He did not need to say the sh’ma in the filthy alleyway and even though it is a relatively minor offense as compared to one who sins by action, he will be punished. שוא then refers to speech which is relatively minor as compared to action. Tosfos may not be satisfied with this interpretation because שוא as it is used according to Rashi does not mean for naught, as it usually does, rather, it means for a lesser offense which is not the usual meaning of שוא. Tosfos therefore offers another explanation. What is meant is – for no reason they draw the sin upon themselves. For it would be better if they did not fulfill the mitzvoh at all rather than saying the words of sh’ma in a place that violates their holiness. The word שוא here means for no positive reason, referring to the motive behind their action when saying the sh’ma in an unclean place. According to this explanation, the word שוא maintains its usual meaning, for naught.
  
  Daf 25a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  HE RULED. Rabainu Chananel ruled as Rav Chisdo says that it is forbidden to recite k’reeas sh’ma even with excrement under his garment on his flesh, and he holds that we follow the verse “all my limbs shall exclaim” (T’hilim 35). For even though Rav Chisdo is a student of Rav Huno, we follow the stringent opinion.And Rav Alfas ruled like Rav Huno, that we are lenient in this matter when one discovers excrement on his body that was covered while he prayed, because the Gemara challenges Rav Popo from Rav Huno’s opinion in Yoma perek Hamemunoh (30a).1<i class="footnote">Rav Popo there says that when one has excrement at its source, the anal area, he may not recite sh’ma. The Gemara proceeds to ask why this is any different than Rav Huno’s case when one has excrement on his body under his garment where he rules that he may recite sh’ma. The Gemara is asking its question from Rav Huno who holds that it is permissible to recite sh’ma and seems to be ignoring that Rav Popo is in agreement with Rav Chisdo who holds that it is prohibited. It seems that the Gemara knows that we rule in favor of Rav Huno. However see Rashi there in Yoma 30a, who explains that the Gemara’s question is from both Rav Huno and Rav Chisdo and if so, is no proof that the halochoh is in accordance with Rav Huno. See Shulchan Oruch 76, 4, who rules that initially one should be stringent and avoid praying when there is excrement on his body covered by his clothing, but de facto when one has already prayed and then finds excrement on his body, he can rely on those who say that it is permissible and he need not repeat his prayers.</i> Since the Gemara there uses Rav Huno’s opinion to challenge Rav Popo, it is obvious that the Gemara holds that we rule in favor of Rav Huno. Otherwise, if we ruled like Rav Chisdo, it would present no difficulty to Rav Popo.
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  THE <i>HALAKHA</i> IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS <i>BARAITA</i> IN ALL OF THESE RULINGS, [BUT] RATHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT ETC. The Gemara introduced a Braiso to prove that Rav Chisdo is correct, that one must distance himself four cubits from where the foul odor of the excrement dissipates and only then is he permitted to recite sh’ma. In that Braiso, it also mentions that these prohibitions are in effect for the excrement of pigs and dogs as well. Rovo argues that the halachoho is not in accordance with this Braiso on the issue of excrement of pigs and dogs, rather we follow a second Braiso that says that the excrement of pigs and dogs is a problem only when they are being used in the tanning process. Then the odor is extremely foul, but ordinarily they do not present a problem.Rashi explained that the halochoh is not in accordance with this Braiso that we learned earlier that prohibits reciting sh’ma in the presence of excrement of dogs and pigs even when they are not being used in the process of tanning hides. However, this differentiation does not apply to human excrement, and it is prohibited to recite sh’ma in the presence of human excrement in any case.1<i class="footnote">Rashi says that it is quite unusual to use human excrement in the processing of hides and it is therefore unlikely that the Braiso would mention that human excrement is a problem only when used for tannin hides.</i>Tosfos now analyzes what the Braiso did not mention. It appears that Rovo is not discussing excrement of chickens and in the second Braiso we do not have the text, excrement of chickens at all. And the second Braiso does not argue about this, excrement of chickens with the earlier Braiso that did mention excrement of chickens. And according to this, it is mentioned in the first Braiso that one may not recite sh’ma in the presence of excrement of chickens and not at all in the second Braiso, it should be prohibited to recite sh’ma in the presence of chicken excrement.Rabainu Yehudoh qualifies Tosfos conclusion. And Rabainu Yehudoh says that only when they are in their coop where there is a huge stench is it forbidden to recite sh’ma, but as far as the chickens that walk2<i class="footnote">See Rosh Simon 45 whose text is בבית הגדלים. This translates as chickens that are raised in a house. They do not have a great stench, but those that are raised in a coop may have a great stench even when walking in a house.</i> in the houses the stench of their excrement is not as foul and we need not be concerned and we are permitted to recite sh’ma in the presence of that excrement.And in Yerushalmee it says that we need only be concerned with chickens that are edomim, and we do not know the explanation of edomim. Some say that it translates as red, and that red chickens have a stronger stench. Others say that edomim refers to the land of Edom where there is a massive amount of barley that causes a very foul odor in the chicken excrement. Tosfos was uncertain of the explanation. And it further says in Yerushalmee that we must distance ourselves from the excrement of animals when reciting sh’ma. R’ Yishmoel son of R’ Yitzchok says, but only the excrement of a donkey and not other animals.3<i class="footnote">For further clarification, see Shulcha Oruch 79, 5.</i>
  
  Line 8
  
  A FOUL ODOR [THAT IS NOT FROM A] TANGIBLE SOURCE? The Gemara differentiates between a foul odor that has a tangible source and a foul odor that does not have a tangible source. Tosfos is examining the definition of a non-tangible source. Does it mean there is no tangible source at all, as in the case of a foul odor from a person who passes wind or perhaps the source of the foul odor may be tangible but not visible to us, and that too would qualify as an odor from a non-tangible source?There are those who say that our latrines where the pit containing the excrement is deep, when they have a wall that separates them from the surrounding area they are the equivalent of a foul odor that has no tangible source, as we find with the latrines of the Persians (Later 26a). Their latrines consisted of a pit that was not directly below the opening. Beneath the opening there was a slope that leads to a pit that was some distance from the opening. The Gemara later says that it is permitted to recite sh’ma in the Persian latrines. Tosfos is considering that when there is a partition around a regular latrine the surrounding area should be considered as a foul odor from a non- tangible source, just as the Persian latrines certainly had a foul odor, but were permitted for sh’ma because of the distance from the pit, so too, the area around the regular latrines should be considered as a foul odor of a non-tangible source.
  
  Daf 25b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  HIS HEART SEES [HIS] NAKEDNESS. Our Mishna says that if a person is in the mikvoh and he has no time to come out and dress before sunrise, he should cover himself with water and recite sh’ma. The Gemara questions our Mishna: How can you say that he is permitted to say sh’ma while sitting in clear water? His heart sees1<i class="footnote">As we have explained earlier, this is figurative. It means that his heart is exposed to the ervoh. When the Torah says בך יראה ולא דבר ערות there shall not be seen among you any ervoh, this opinion understands the בך as referring to any part of the person that is generally not exposed to the ervoh in everyday normal dress. The heart is usually not exposed to the ervoh.</i> the ervoh. The Gemara answers that this Tano holds that a heart seeing the ervoh is not a problem.2<i class="footnote">The word בך literally means – you, in your entirety. When you are exposed to ervoh, it is forbidden to recite sh’ma because there is a lack of holiness, but this does not refer to individual parts of one’s anatomy.</i>R’I explained that since the Gemara challenged the first Tano as it did, by plainly assuming that one’s heart may not see the ervoh, it appears that the Gemara knew that the halochoh is that when one’s heart sees the ervoh it is forbidden to recite sh’ma.However, Rabainu Sh’mayoh, a disciple of Rashi ruled like the first Tano that when one’s heart sees the ervoh it is permitted to recite sh’ma.The Gemara soon introduces a dispute about whether it is permitted to recite sh’ma when one’s heel sees the ervoh. However, from the Gemara we will soon learn, it appears that when one’s heart sees the ervoh it is forbidden to recite sh’ma, for the amoroim argue only about one’s heel seeing the ervoh, but when one’s heart sees the ervoh, there is general agreement that it is forbidden to recite sh’ma.3<i class="footnote">That is the ruling in Shulchon Oruch Orach Chaim 74, 1 and 5. When one’s heart sees the ervoh it is forbidden to recite sh’ma. When one’s heel sees the ervoh, it is permitted to recite sh’ma.</i>
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  AND THE HALACHA IS: [IF] HIS HEEL TOUCHED [IT IS] PROHIBITED. The Gemara’s conclusion is that when one’s heel is touching his ervoh, it is prohibited to recite sh’ma. And the reason that when his heel touches the ervoh, he may not recite sh’ma is because we decree that although touching his ervoh with his heel will generally not evoke improper feelings, it should be forbidden to recite sh’ma when his heel touches his ervoh, because we are concerned that if we are lenient in this matter, he may touch his ervoh with his hands and that is certainly forbidden because it evokes improper feelings
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  A CHAMBER POT FOR EXCREMENT.  We have learned that not only is it forbidden to recite sh’ma in the presence of excrement, it is also prohibited to recite sh’ma in the presence of a chamber pot designated for excrement.Rashi explained that the chamber pot we are discussing is made of earthenware that absorbs the foul odor of excrement. It appears that according to his explanation that a vessel that does not absorb such as glass it is possibly permissible to recite sh’ma in its presence.1<i class="footnote">In Shulchon Oruch 87, 1, he rules that in the presence of earthenware and wooden chamber pots it is prohibited to recite sh’ma, even if they have been washed properly. In the presence of glass or metal chamber pots it is permitted to recite sh’ma if they have been washed properly.</i>
  AND HE ONLY POURS INTO IT A QUARTER [LOG OF] WATER. See Artscroll note 36. The lead words of Tosfos do not appear in our Gemara exactly as Tosfos quotes them. The Gemara is saying that one can nullify the urine by adding water. There is an argument about how much water is needed to accomplish this nullification of urine. Some say even the smallest amount suffices. R’ Zakai says that a quarter log is required. The Gemara does not address nullification of the chamber pot, it only addresses the urine itself. Tosfos discusses the chamber pot.But as far as the chamber pot is concerned1<i class="footnote">In our Tosfos the word אפשר is used. It seems that Tosfos is not sure about this matter. In other sources that seen to be quoting Tosfos, the word מסתבר is used, which implies that Tosfos is relatively certain that water does not nullify the pot.</i> it is possible that water cannot accomplish nullification. No matter how much water is poured into the pot, it still remains a pot and it is not changed by the water, whereas the urine itself is changed by the water that is mixed with it.
  
  Daf 26a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  [FOR] A SEFER TORAH, HE MAKES FOR HIMSELF A PARTITION. R’ Yehoshua B’ Laivee says that it is insufficient to place a Torah in a vessel that is in another vessel. One must have a partition between his bed and the section of the room where the sefer Torah is kept. This is not necessary for t’filin and most other holy books. They may be put in a vessel that is within a second vessel.And this ruling that there must be a partition in the room was said specifically for a sefer Torah. And also for chumoshim1<i class="footnote">Tosfos is talking about chumoshim that are written sefer Torah style on parchment and wrapped around a post. They are called chumoshim because they only contain one of the five s’forim of the Torah, not the complete Torah. Tosfos is not referring to the printed chumoshim that we use today. They are like other s’forim and need only be covered.</i> one should be stringent as with a sefer Torah, but for other books, it is sufficient to cover them with any minimal covering.2<i class="footnote">Tosfos use of the phrase בעלמא כסוי seems to mean a minimal covering. This is a bit perplexing, because we have learned that t’filin and other s’forim require a vessel within a vessel. Perhaps Tosfos is referring to the second vessel, as we have seen about the garment placed over a closet. That garment is the second vessel. It is not really a proper vessel for a sefer but it is acceptable. Perhaps that is what Tosfos means with the phrase בעלמא כסוי.</i>
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  THE MORNING PRAYER [MAY BE RECITED] UNTIL NOON ETC.; THE AFTERNOON PRAYER [MAY BE RECITED] UNTIL THE EVENING. Tosfos wonders about why the Mishna uses different phrases to describe the same time period. And if you ask: why doesn’t the Mishna use the phrase “all day” in reference to minchoh prayers as it does in regard to musaf prayers?1<i class="footnote">It seems that Tosfos in his question understood that musaf prayers are recited after midday as are the minchoh prayers. If so, Tosfos question is quite understandable. Minchoh and musaf have the same exact times for starting and ending. Why doesn’t the Mishna use the same phrase for minchoh as it does for musaf? What we must ask is why Tosfos originally thought that musaf starts at midday. תעלומה מגיד by R’  Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov suggests that since the Mishna discusses musaf after minchoh, it is an indication that musaf does not start before minchoh and Tosfos is justified in his question.</i>Tosfos explains that the previous question is based on an error. And we can answer: that the time for musaf is all day long, even from the early morning, for the musaf sacrifices can be offered immediately after the daily tomid sacrifice. If so, since the prayers are in place of the sacrifices, the musaf prayers can also be said immediately from the morning. This is not true of minchoh, which can be said only after six and a half hours of the day have passed.Tosfos offers proof that musaf can be said all day, even in the early morning. And so too it is evident from the first perek of Avodoh Zoroh (4b), where the Gemara says: one should not pray the musaf prayers during the first three hours of the day on Rosh Hashonoh privately etc.2<i class="footnote">The Gemara there explains that because of the nature of Rosh Hashonoh as a day of judgment, the early part of the day is an inopportune time for an individual to say the musaf prayer.</i> It is exclusively on Rosh Hashonoh that one should not say musaf during the early part of the day. We can see from this that on the other days of the year one can pray the musaf prayers during the first three hours of the day.Now that we know that the time for musaf prayers starts before minchoh prayers, why does the Mishna speak about minchoh before musaf? And the reason the Mishna precedes the discussion of minchoh prayers3<i class="footnote">See note 1. It is precisely because the Mishna mentions minchoh first that we thought the time for starting musaf is the same as the time for starting minchoh. Now that we know that musaf prayers can be said at the beginning of the day, we must have a new reason for the Mishna discussing minchoh before musaf.</i> before the discussion of musaf prayers is because minchoh is constant, every day, even though the time for musaf starts earlier.
  
  Daf 26b
  
  
  
  Daf 27a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  COME AND HEAR: THE ADDITIONAL PRAYER [MAY BE RECITED] ALL DAY. RABBI YEHUDA SAYS: UNTIL SEVEN HOURS AFTER SUNRISE. AND IT WAS TAUGHT: [IF] THEY WERE BEFORE. The Gemara is presenting R’ Yehudoh’s opinion about when one must say the Musaf prayer. As we will soon see it is Tosfos opinion that R’ Yehudoh’s opinion about musaf does not appear in the Mishna. Tosfos must therefore emend the text of the Gemara to reflect his opinion. See the Mishna on 26a, there R’ Yehudoh’s opinion appears in parentheses. The text does not follow Tosfos opinion. In our Gemara when R’ Yehudoh’s opinion is introduced with the words אימא סיפא I will quote the end of the Mishna, the Gemara is quoting the Mishna on 26a. Tosfos replace the words אימא סיפא with the words תא שמע as we can see in the lead words of the Tosfos.And we do not have the text אימא סיפא ושל וכו' and I will quote the end which refers to the end of the Mishna, because this is not in the Mishna. For the words of R’ Yehudoh who said that musaf may only be said till seven hours are not in the Mishna. And there are books of the Talmud that inserted those words in the Mishna, however all the old books do not have those words.Assuming that Tosfos is correct that the words about the conclusion of the time for musaf do not appear in the Mishna we must know, why not? And if you ask: why did Rebbe the Prince, author of the Mishna not mention it, R’ Yehudoh’s opinion about the musaf, in the Mishna. And we can answer: because he does not agree with his opinion on this matter that he, R’ Yehudoh, says that musaf may only be said till seven hours.In this Mishna Rebbe is quoting the opinion of the minority only if there is some practical use for that opinion.1<i class="footnote">See sefer תעלומה מגיד who explains that the Gemara knew that in this Mishna, the minority opinion is presented only because there is some relevance as far as the halochoh is concerned, because the Mishna did not mention R’ Yehudoh’s opinion about musaf and he did mention his opinion about shacharis and minchoh. This implies that the opinion about musaf was not mentioned because it is irrelevant for practical purposes. His opinion about shacharis is mentioned because that is the halochoh as can be seen from the Mishna in aiduyos. His opinion about minchoh must be mentioned because it has relevance, otherwise it would not have been mentioned as his opinion on musaf is not mentioned. The Gemara does conclude that his opinion on michoh is relevant for one who does as R’ Yehudoh has done well and one who has done like the Rabanan has done well.</i> But in that which he, R’ Yehudoh, says that shacharis can be said till four hours, he, Rebbe the prince, holds as he, R’ Yehudoh, does, since the Mishna teaches in the selected Mishnayos, (aiduyos), as he, R’ Yehudoh, says that the limit for shacharis is till four hours.Why does Rebbe mention R’ Yehudoh’s opinion about the limit for minchoh prayers? And in that matter of the half minchoh limit, he, Rebbe, also mentions R’ Yehudoh’s opinion because that opinion is also relevant in halachic practice, as the Gemara later says one who does like this master has done well and one who does like this master has done well. For this is the meaning of that Gemara: One who does as R’ Yehudoh, who says that after the half minchoh is night time, and usually says maariv after the half minchoh period has done correctly, and for this reason, since has acted as if it is already night, he cannot say minchoh after the half minchoh, since  he has considered this period night time by usually saying maariv at that time. But  one should not explain that the entire statement is discussing minchoh prayers and is teaching us that one who does like R’ Yehudoh and said Minchoh before the half minchoh has done correctly, for it is plain that the Rabanan agree that one can say minchoh during the time allowed by R’ Yehudoh. Their argument is only about the limit that R’ Yehudoh places on the last time for minchoh, not about the beginning of the time for minchoh.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  THAT RAV PRAYED THE SHABBAT [PRAYERS ON] THE EVE OF SHABBAT. The Gemara shows that one may act in accordance with R’ Yehudoh’s opinion and say maariv immediately after the half minchoh. This can be seen fro Rav, who said the Shabos maariv prayers on Friday afternoon after the half minchoh period. This is acceptable only according to R’ Yehudoh. The Rabanan do not allow for saying maariv early. Tosfos raises another problem with saying maariv early on Friday afternoon. This is bewildering. For the Gemara says in perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabos 23b) when discussing the proper time to light the Shabos candles, provided that one should not light too early before nightfall or too late. When one says the maariv prayers at the half minchoh, he is going to light the candles before he begins to pray, it seems that this would be too early, and the Gemara clearly states that one should not light the candles too early.And we can answer; that there in Shabos 23b where the Gemara says that one should not light too early, it is speaking of when one is not accepting the Shabos upon himself, he is lighting the candles but expects to continue working. It is only then that we are told not to light the candles too early, but here in our Gemara, we are speaking of when he accepts Shabos and stops working immediately. Therefore, it is not considered too early to light the candles even though it is well before nightfall.And the reason that it is acceptable to say maariv immediately after the half minchoh is because he, Rav, holds like R’ Yehudoh. And so too, the others mentioned later that said the Post-Shabos prayers on Shabos after the half minchoh, that is because they hold like R’ Yehudoh as far as the evening prayers are concerned, that it can be said an hour and a quarter before nightfall.There is much disagreement about the correct text of the next portion of the Tosfos. We will follow the text that appears in the Tosfos HoRosh on this subject. This is by no means a declaration that this is <u>the</u> correct text; it is merely the simplest one to follow in the context of how Tosfos is presented. Even though, we say that one who usually says maariv after the half minchoh cannot say minchoh at that time, this is only a ruling that applies  to  prayer  not  to  other  areas  of  halochoh  and  it  is  not prohibited for one to do work erev Shabos immediately after the half minchoh when he did not accept Shabos by saying maariv.And so too, as far as the issue of adding to Shabos and Yom Tov and Yom Kipur, that it is established for us that the obligation to add some time from the previous day to the Holy day by discontinuing our work prior to the exact beginning of the Holy Day is a Torah obligation, even so it is not required to have such a great amount of time as from the half minchoh till nightfall. It is certainly sufficient to add a relatively small period to the Shabos or other Holy Day to fulfill the Torah obligation to add some time. It is certainly not necessary to begin the holiday at the half minchoh time, even according to R’ Yehudoh.
  
  Daf 27b
  
  
  
  Daf 28a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  AND THE ADDITIONAL PRAYER [MAY BE RECITED] ALL DAY. Our Gemara clearly states that the time for musaf is the entire day. Tosfos has other Gemaros that seem to be in conflict with our Gemara. Rabainu Shimshon ל"ז asked: How can we say here that the time for musaf is the entire day, the Gemara in Tomid Nishchat (P’sochim 58a) says that musafim are offered in the sixth hour of the day and the cups of frankincense that were on the table with the showbread all week long, were offered on the altar in the seventh hour. This of course is a contradiction to our Gemara that says the musafim can be offered all day long.There seems to be an easy solution to this problem. The Gemara in P’sochim may be saying that the sixth hour is the optimum trime for offering musafim and our Mishna is saying that in the event the musafim were not offered at the sixth hour they can be offered all day long. Tosfos rejects this solution.And if you say that these words, of the Gemara in P’sochim are teaching us that it is a preferred mitzvoh to offer the musafim at the sixth hour but de facto, when one did not offer them during the sixth hour, the entire day is their time and that is what our Gemara is discussing, But we have a Gemara in Yomo (70a)1 it appears that the musafim were slaughtered together with the daily sacrifices and offered on the altar together with the tomid. Since we have a contradiction between the Gemara in P’sochim that says the musafim were offered at the sixth hour and the Gemara in Yomo that says they were offered together with the Tomid, which was not later than the fourth hour and usually much earlier, we must reconcile those two Gemaros. We can say that the Gemara in Yomo is discussing when they actually offered the musafim and the Gemara in Psochim is speaking about a de facto situation and is giving the time limit if one missed the preferred time. If so, our Gemara that says that musafim could have been offered all day long is a contradiction with the Gemara in P’sochim. The Gemara in P’sochim says that the upper limit is the sixth hour and our Gemara is saying that the upper limit is all day long.And he, Rabainu Shishon of Senz answered: that there in P’sochim the Gemara is speaking about Shabos. The Gemara is saying that on Shabos the preferred mitzvoh is to offer the musafim in the sixth hour. The Gemara in Yomo is speaking of other days that there is a musaf offering such as Yom Tov or Rosh Chodesh. On those days it is preferred that the musaf be offered together with the Tomid, which is much earlier than the sixth hour. Our Gemara is speaking of all days that there is a musaf and is teaching us that if we missed the preferred time on Shabos which is the sixth hour or the preferred time of Yom Tov which is together with the Tomid, we may offer the musaf at any time during the day. 
  
  Line 15
  
  THE HALAKHA [IS THAT] HE RECITES THE AFTERNOON PRAYER [FIRST] AND THE ADDITIONAL PRAYER THEREAFTER. The Gemara cited a Braiso that teaches that when one has the two prayers, minchoh and musaf; he should say minchoh first because minchoh is constant as opposed to musaf which is said only from time to time. There is a general rule that when has to perform two mitzvos one does the constant one first. Tosfos gives us a practical application of this ruling. From here we learn that on Yom Kipur we should be careful to complete praying the shacharis prayer before six and a half hours of the day have gone by, which is before the time to pray minchoh, for if one is not careful to start musaf before six and a half hours we would be required to pray minchoh before musaf as is evident from the ruling of the Braiso.This explanation of Tosfos assumes that when the Gemara speaks one who has two prayers before him, he must choose the more constant one; it refers to all situations where one has two prayers to recite. Tosfos will now show us that R’I has a different opinion on this issue. And R’I says that it is not necessary to pray the mincha prayers a six and a half hours on Yom Kipur before the musaf prayer. For that which was said in the Braiso that one must pray the  minchoh prayer earlier, that is when one has to take care of his needs and he will not be able to pray the minchoh prayer at its time, usually after nine and a half hours, and he must therefore pray both prayers now. For example, he needs to attend a major banquet such as a wedding and he is concerned that he may extend his meal beyond the regular time to pray minchoh or that he might become intoxicated and be unable to pray even if he finishes the meal on time. However, if there is sufficient time to pray the minchoh prayer at its regular time after the musaf prayer, he need not precede the minchoh prayer before the musaf prayer; rather, he should pray in order musaf and then minchoh.
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  AS RAV YOSEF TRANSLATED: FOR THEY HAVE DELAYED THE TIMES OF THE FESTIVALS. The literal translation of the targum that the Gemara quoted is that they postponed the times for the holidays. This seems unrelated to the purpose that the Gemara quoted this verse. The Gemara is discussing one who prays musaf after the seventh hour, what does this have to do with the Targum of this verse.Tosfos explains: And if the verse  is truly speaking  about  the  holidays, it  is  not possible to use the term postponed. Postponed implies that the holiday was not observed at the proper time and is going to be observed at some later time. But that is impossible, for there is no way of making up for non-observed holidays, if one misses a holiday there is no make up for it. The word postponed the holiday makes no sense. Rather, the verse must be discussing prayer, where we do find that there is a concept of making up for a missed prayer. The verse is saying that those who miss praying at the correct time will be saddened.
  
  Daf 28b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  ONCE THE TIME [TO RECITE] THE AFTERNOON PRAYER HAS ARRIVED, A PERSON MAY NOT TASTE ANYTHING ETC. And R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee is of the opinion that as soon as the time for minchoh arrives we must even stop eating. And it is not so. We do not follow R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee in this matter.1<i class="footnote">See Tosfos Shabos 9b matter. ד'ה בתספורת for a different opinion on this matter.</i>
  
  Daf 29a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  ABAYE WOULD CURSE ANYONE WHO RECITED [THE PRAYER]: GRANT US UNDERSTANDING. After a lengthy discussion about the abridged version of sh’moneh esray, the Gemara informs us that Abaye condemned those who said this abridgement. Tosfos tell us that this is not an outright rejection of the haveenainu prayer. And this is the halochoh.1<i class="footnote">Literally לן קיימא translates it is established to us. It is always used to express that this is the halochoh.</i> And there are books of the Talmud that conclude, that these words have been said in a city but along the road, it is permitted to say Haveenainu, as it appears at the beginning of this Maseches. On 3a the Gemara relates the story of R’ Yosee who was criticized by Elijah for not saying the abridged version. It appears that when one has a legitimate difficulty with reciting the entire sh’moneh esray, he may recite the abridged version.2<i class="footnote">See Artscroll note 31. Also Shulchon Oruch 110, 1.</i>
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  LET US INCLUDE [HAVDALA IN THE BLESSING]: GIVE US UNDERSTANDING. Rav Nachmon said in the name of Shmuel that one can always say haveenainu except at the conclusion of Shabos when one must say havdoloh. The Gemara here asks that he should include the havdoloh in the haveenainu prayer. When the Gemata asks a question it is proof that the Gemara feels that is quite logical to do as it suggests in the question. Otherwise the Gemara would not ask the question. Any question that the Gemara ever asks may be assumed to be a very strong statement that the Gemara considers the point made by the question to be very logical. In this particular case the Gemara does not in fact find an answer to the question. This is even further proof that the Gemara considers the point made by the question to be very logical. Tosfos is troubled by a Gemara in maseches Needoh that doesn’t seem to consider this question worthy of mentioning at all.And that which the Gemara says in the first perek of needoh (8a) that all year long one prays the entire eighteen b’rochos with the exception of maariv at the conclusion of Yom Kipur, because it is taxing for the congregation because of the fast. And there are those who say that even at the conclusion of Yom Kipur we pray the complete eighteen b’rochos because we must say havdoloh in the b’rochoh of חונן הדעת. And this is bewildering. Why doesn’t the Gemara there ask that we should include havdoloh in the haveenainu prayer as the Gemara is so adamant here, that havdoloh could be included in haveenainu.Here the Gemara seems to be so sure that it is a very reasonable solution to add havdoloh to haveenainu and there the Gemara doesn’t think of it at all. And we can answer: that there is no comparison. The Gemara here and the Gemara  there are looking at the issue from two different vantage points. For there, the Gemara holds that throughout the entire year we always pray eighteen b’rochos, and we should therefore not ask “and we should include havdoloh in haveenainu” in order to change the tradition of the entire year. We usually make every effort to maintain the traditional practice.But here in our Gemara, where we are saying that throughout the year we do pray haveenainu, the Gemara correctly asks why we should change the custom in order to say אתה חוננתנו, let us include havdoloh in haveenainu.  Once again, the thrust of the Gemara’s question is that we should do what is necessary to maintain the tradition of saying haveenainu at the conclusion of Shabos as we do all year.
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  BECAUSE HE CAN RECITE IT IN [THE BLESSING]: WHO LISTENS TO PRAYER. The Gemara says that if one forgot to say “and give dew and rain” during the winter months, he need not repeat the sh’moneh esray because he can insert that prayer in the b’rochoh of שומע תפלה which is a general b’rochoh in which we can ask for any of our needs. As the Gemara says (later 31a, Avodoh Zoroh 8a) a person may ask for his needs during the b’rochoh שומע תפלה. And specifically one’s needs, for example when one has a sick person in his house or his field needs rain which is similar to a prayer and so to asking for dew and rain  is a prayer that can be added to שומע תפלה, but declaring that He brings down the rain which is usually recited in the second b’rochoh and havdoloh and other praises of Hashem are not allowed to be said in this b’rochoh because they are not similar to the thought of the b’rochoh of שומע תפלה, which is to pray to Hashem for one’s needs not to declare the greatness of Hashem that he provides these needs on a regular basis.The Gemara has taught us that שומע תפלה is a general b’rochoh in which one can mention his individual needs. It seems from Tosfos that there were those who thought that this could be taken a step further and when making personal requests from Hashem after the conclusion of the eighteen b’rochos, when we usually say אלקי נצור  they would conclude with the words ברוך אתה ה' שומע תפלה.Tosfos wants to show us that this is totally unacceptable. And it appears that one who says שומע תפלה ברוך אתה ה' after he concludes the words of request while sitting1<i class="footnote">It is unclear why Tosfos uses the words “while sitting”. It would seem that this additional b’rocho would be added after the conclusion of personal request while still standing. Perhaps Tosfos means that even if one completed the sh’moneh esray and sat while asking these requests it is also unacceptable even if it does not appear as if he is adding to the sh’moneh esray.</i> is repulsive, as the Gemara says (Megiloh18a) after the Gemara goes through a lengthy exposition explaining the reason for the order of all the b’rochos in sh’moneh esray, after this point, the recital of the final b’rochoh שים שלום, it is prohibited to recite the praises of Hashem, this means, to add b’rochos to these eighteen.It is clear that it  is prohibited  to add a  b’rochoh to  the regular eighteen b’rochos. Tosfos expresses his opinion that even adding an entire sh’moneh esray is forbidden. And even if he comes to pray the entire sh’moneh esray another time and not to only recite one of the b’rochos such as שומע תפלה as we previously discussed, is forbidden, because it appears as if he is adding to the b’rochos of sh’moneh esray.There is some evidence that addin a second sh’moneh esray is a worthy pursuit. Tosfos deals with that. And that which we said earlier (21a) would that a person pray the entire day, which seems to indicate that it is praiseworthy for one to say sh’moneh esray many times during the day, even more than the  three prescribed times that is only when there is a doubt as to whether he prayed or not, he may pray a second time in order to dispel the doubt for even if he prayed already praying again is worthy, but if he definitely prayed, we have said earlier that he must stop even in the middle of a b’rochoh as Shmuel says in perek Mee Shemaiso (ibid.)But we do find that a person is required to recite the sh’moneh esray twice. And that which we find that the Chazon repeats them, the eighteen b’rochos, that is so that the multitude who cannot say the sh’moneh esray themselves, should fulfill their obligation by listening to the Chazon.But why must the Chazon first say the sh’moneh esray himself? Why can’t he fulfill his own obligation as he recites it for the congregation? And the reason that the Chazon prays silently together with the congregation, before he recites the sh’moneh esray publicly, that private recital, is in order to put his prayer in order, so that he should be familiar with the text of the prayer when he recites it for the public, as the Gemara says in the last perek of Rosh Hashonoh (34b). 
  
  Daf 29b
  
  
  
  Daf 30a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  HOW DOES HE RECITE [THIS PRAYER]? The Gemara asks how one prays t’feelas haderech? The Gemara’s question, how does one pray this prayer, refers to the prayer of t’feelas haderech. And Rav Shaishes says that one may recite this prayer even as he walks. And the Halochoh is in accordance with Rav Shaishes. However in the Tosfos1<i class="footnote">This emendation is found in the Tosfos of Rabainu Yehudoh the pious.</i> of HoRav Yosaif he ruled in accordance with Rav Chisdo. And so too Rav Alfas said that he prefers Rav Chisdo’s opinion better than Rav Shaishes’ opinion, because we see that even Rav Shaishes did as Rav Chisdo when he had the opportunity and referred to Rav Chisdo’s opinion as being better.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN [THE PRAYER]: GRANT US UNDERSTANDING AND THE BRIEF PRAYER?  This is bewildering. When the Gemara asks what difference is there between haveenainu and the short t’feeloh, the Gemara should say that the difference is that the short t’feeloh is said only in a place of danger and haveenainu may be said even in a place where there is no danger?The Gemara already knew that. The Gemara is asking if there are any differences beyond those that we know about the danger level. And we can answer: that the questioner already assumes that we know the difference about the danger level. This is what the Gemara is asking: What is the difference between the two prayers when each one is said in its place, the short t’feeloh in a place of danger and haveenainu in a place that is not dangerous? Are there perhaps any other differences?
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  THE HALAKHA IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REBBE. Our Mishna mentions only the opinion of the first Tano that one who is riding on a donkey should descend from the donkey to pray, if he has someone who can watch the donkey. The Braiso introduces a dissenting opinion. Rebbe holds that even if one has a guard available, he need not descend from the donkey. The Gemara concludes that the halochoh is like Rebbe. That he need not dismount from the donkey, even when there is no danger. And even as the donkey is walking one may pray and he need not turn his face toward Yerusholayim.Rebbe’s reason for not requiring that one descend from the donkey is because he will not be able to concentrate properly since he feels that he is losing time while praying. If we required that he stop moving or face Yerusholayim as he prays, that too would cost him time and prevent him from concentrating properly. Therefore, Tosfos concludes that since the halochoho is like Rebbe, not only does one not have to descend from the donkey, but he may continue praying as the donkey walks and he need not face Yerusholayim.
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  ONE WHO WAS STANDING [IN PRAYER] IN THE DIASPORA, SHOULD FOCUS HIS HEART TOWARD ERETZ YISRAEL. Notice that the text of the lead words of Tosfos is slightly different than the Gemara. The Gemara reads that one should turn his heart towards the land of Israel. Tosfos says that this is wrong. Tosfos understands that the word יכוין, he should direct, and the word יחזיר at the end of the Braiso have the same meaning. And we do not have the text with the word לבו, his heart following יכוין, because the word יכוין refers to his face, as we are taught in the end of the Braiso, if he was standing in the east, he should turn his face to the west. Since at the end of the Braiso the intent is clearly that he should turn his face, we may assume that at the beginning of the Braiso, the requirement is the same, that one turn his face in the direction of Eretz Yisroel, Yerusholaim and the Temple. See Artscroll note 12.
  
  Line 10
  
  "<i>TALPIYYOT</i>" IS THE HILL [<i>TEL</i>] TOWARD WHICH ALL MOUTHS [<i>PIYYOT</i>] TURN. The Gemara concludes that the verse “as the tower of David”, refers to the Bais Hamikdosh. לתלפיות literally means a landmark. The word can be divided in two תל פיות a hill (the temple mount) towards which all mouths turn, i.e. all our prayers are said in the direction of the temple. The Gemara in maseches Bovo Basro 25a has a discussion about where the Divine Presence is located. Some say in the west and some say in the east.And we rule like this Gemara, and so too do we conclude in Lo Yachpor (Bovo Basro 25b), where the Gemara says you who live to the north of Eretz Yisroel should face south, towards Eretz Yisroel. And not like those amoroim mentioned earlier (Bovo Basro 25a) who argue whether the Divine Presence is in the east or in the west. According to those opinions we would always face west or east depending on which opinion we held. We however, face Yerusholayim always, no matter where we are and that follows our Gemara here and the conclusion of the Gemara on Bovo Basro 25b.Tosfos was written in Europe. Now we are to the west of Eretz Yisroel, therefore we turn to the east when we pray.
  
  Line 11
  
  WHEN SHMUEL’S FATHER AND LEVI [WANTED TO SET OUT ON A JOURNEY IN THE MORNING], THEY WOULD PRAY EARLY. The father of Shmuel and Laivee would pray before day when they needed to go on a trip. Literally מקדמי translates as before. Before what? The Gemara is quite vague about this. Tosfos quotes Rashi’s opinion and disagrees with it. He then offers his own opinion. Rashi says that they prayed before the morning star1 rises. And this does not appear to be correct. For if so, they did not fulfill their obligation at all, for that time is still not day and shacharis must be said during the day.
  
  Daf 30b
  
  
  
  Daf 31a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  HE BOUGHT A CUP OF WHITE GLASS. The Gemara relates that at the wedding of Rav Ashee’s son, Rav Ashee saw that the students were getting a bit too happy. He brought a very expensive cup and broke it in front of them in order to stem the overflow of happiness. From here, it became customary to break a cup at a wedding. This custom remains with us till today
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  ONE WHO LETS BLOOD FROM A CONSECRATED ANIMAL.  And this is difficult, for the Gemara says in the third perek of Avodoh Zoroh (44a) in regard to sacrificial blood offered on the outer altar and sacrificial blood offered on the inner altar, of the sacrifices, that both these of the inner altar and those of the outer altar are sold to gardeners as fertilizer. We see that there is no m’eelah penalty for using their blood and our Gemara says that benefiting from the blood of bloodletting does carry a m’eelah penalty?And we can answer: that there in Avodoh Zoroh where the Gemara says there is no M’eeloh that is after sprinkling of the blood on the altar, and the owners of the sacrifice have already been absolved.1<i class="footnote">It seems from this Tosfos that prior to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, if one benefits from the blood he is subject to the m’eeloh penalty. This is contradictory to the Gemara in Yomo 59b. See הרועים מלא in the back of the Gemara for further discussion on this matter.</i> Once the absolution has been accomplished there is no m’eeloh. This is not so here. The absolution has not yet been accomplished and blood removed from the animal by bloodletting prior to the sprinkling of the blood is subject to the m’eeloh penalty.
  
  Line 10
  
  THE SAGES ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR MISHNA. There are three sources on this issue. Our Mishna says that we may only pray when we are in submissive mode. The first Braiso quoted in the Gemara says that we must pray only after discussing an absolute halochoh. The second Braiso quoted in the Gemara says that we may pray only after rejoicing of mitzvoh. When our Gemara says that the Rabanan did as the Mishna rules and Rav Ashee did as the Braiso rules, it indicates that there is a dispute between the Mishna and the first Braiso. The Gemara never mentions that there is any dispute between our Mishna and the second Braiso that says we must be involved with rejoicing of mitzvoh when we are about to pray. And the halochoh is like them, the Rabanan who did as it says in the Mishna, that one must be in a submissive frame of mind when he begins praying.And therefore we do not pray when in a mood of lightheadedness and laughter, only when in a mood of submissiveness1<i class="footnote">This is the frame of mind required by our Mishna.</i> and joy of mitzvoh,2<i class="footnote">This is the requirement of the second Braiso. מגיד תעלומה says that Tosfos obviously holds that there is no conflict between our Mishna and the second Braiso.</i> for example, when occupied in words of Torah. And therefore it is customary to recite the verses of song (T’hilim 146-150) and ashray (psalms 145) before prayer.3<i class="footnote">See Shulchon Oruch 93, 1, 2, 3, who quotes the Mishna and both Braisos. It seems that he holds that there is no conflict between them.</i>
  RAV ASHI ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE <i>BARAITA</i>. Yerushalmee says: one should stand up to pray only from the study of halochoh. This Braiso seems to be the same as the one Rav Ashee follows in our Gemara. R’ Yirmiyoh said, one who is occupied with the needs of the public is equivalent to one who is occupied with the study of Torah.1<i class="footnote">See מעדני יום טוב to Rosh simon 2, 200, who offers two explanations of this Yerushalmee. It may mean that one who is occupied with needs of the public is equal to the study of Torah and he may immediately begin to pray, because that is joy of a mitzvoh. A second explanation is that one who is occupied with public works need not pray at all.</i>
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  AS WE FOUND IN [THE BOOKS OF] THE EARLY PROPHETS, THEY WOULD CONCLUDE THEIR TALKS WITH WORDS OF PRAISE AND CONSOLATION. The Gemara says that the prophets all concluded their books with words of praise and consolation. Upon a closer examination we see that this requires some explaining.There is a bit of confusion about the various verses quoted in Yerushalmee. We will attempt to straighten them out to the best of our ability. The last chapter in Yirmiyah describes the vents of the destruction of the Temple and concludes with the improvement of prison conditions of King Yehoyochin. That is neither praise or consolation. And Yerushalmee asks: with the exception of Yirmiyoh etc.? Tosfos does not tell us the answer to this question. Yerushalmee says that in the preceding chapter 51, Yirmiyoh concludes with the sentence ככה תשקע בבל predicting the end of Babylonia which is a consolation for us who suffered so much at the hands of the Babylonians. At the end of that verse the posuk writes עד הנה דברי ירמיהו until this point are the words of Yirmiyoh. We see that Yirmiyoh’s prophecy ends in chapter Chapter 52 is merely a continuation of the narrative of the events pertaining to the destructionTosfos now quotes another question from Yerushalmee, which also discusses a book by Yirmiyoh, the book of Lamantations. Tosfos does not mention that Yerushalmee also asked about the conclusion of Isaiah. But it is written at the end of Lamentations, Chapter 5, 22, For even if You have utterly rejected us, You have already raged sufficiently against us. Once again Tosfos does not tell us Yerushalmee’s answer. Yerushamee says: the verse השיבנו is in place of כי אם מאוס מאסתנו. Some are of the opinion that this refers to the fact that after the last verse we repeat השיבנו. The פירוש מבעל ספר חרדים says that the last verse is the reason for השיבנו. The Prophet is saying that You have utterly rejected us and we still remain your people and do not stray to strange Gods. For this reason we will merit that You will return us to You. According to this understanding the conclusion of Lamentations is השיבנו, the last verse is only explaining why we can be sure that this will eventually happen.However, from those verses at the end of the Twelve Prophets1<i class="footnote">The last words of the Twelve Prophets are discussing how Hashem will send Elijah the prophet to instruct us on returning to Hashem. The very last words are “lest I come and strike the land with destruction”. These words per se are speaking of destruction but within the context of the verse that Hashem is sending Elijah to instruct us to return to Hashem in order to avoid this destruction, the verse itself is not something bad. Rather, it is consolation in the sense that we will on fact be instructed to return to Hashem and we will merit the ultimate redemption.</i> and Koheles,2<i class="footnote">The last verse in Koheles reads as follows: For G-d will judge every deed – even everything hidden – whether good or evil. This verse on the surface seems not to be praise of Hashem or consolation for the Jewish people. It is a statement of the human condition. That man will eventually be judged for all his deeds in this world. It is very puzzling that Tosfos says that the conclusion of the Twelve Prophets and Koheles can be interpreted as evil for the idolaters. There seems to be no reference in theses verses to the idolaters at all. In the sefer  עשרה מאמרותof the Rama of Pano, a great Kabbalist, he explains how each of these verses can be understood as positive and uplifting and worthy of being used for the conclusion of a sefer.</i> the Yerushalmee does not ask at all, that they seem to be a contradiction to the statement that the prophets concluded their prophecy with words of praise and consolation. Because the Yerushalmee considers those verses as speaking of good, and as words of consolation, and they are not discussing punishment of Yisroel.
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  AND FIND HIM IN ANOTHER CORNER. The Gemara says that when R’ Akeevo prayed privately, if you left him in one corner of the room at the end of his prayers you found him in the other corner. Why? He bowed and prostrated himself many times during his prayer. Tosfos searches for the Halachic basis for so excessive bowing and prostrating. This is bewildering, for the Gemara says later (34a) that one who comes to bow at the end of each and every b’rochoh as an expression of his piety and submissiveness to Hashem, we teach him that he should not bow, because the Rabanan instituted bowing only at the beginning and end of the first b’rachoh and at the beginning and end of Modim. If so, how did R’ Akeevos bow so excessively. And Horav Yosaif answered that here referring to R’ Akeevo’s bowing we are speaking of the pleas he was saying after the eighteen b’rochos. After one concludes the regular eighteen b’rochos he may plea to Hashem for whatever else he needs and during those pleas he may bow and prostate himself even excessively.Tosfos is not satisfied with this explanation. And this answer is not clear, for it seems that his that his excessive bowing took place during the eighteen b’rochos. And it appears to R’I that it is certainly forbidden to bow at the end of each b’rochoh, but in the middle of the b’rocho it is permissible to bow. And that is what the Gemara is discussing here in the story about R’ Akeevo. He bowed excessively during the middle section of each and every b’rochoh And when he reached the conclusion of each b’rochoh, he straightened himself for the conclusion of the b’rochoh.And it is for this reason that it has become the universal custom on Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur that when they pray זכרנו and ובכן תן and ותמלוך, they bow when they reach the verses and at the end of each b’rochoh they straighten themselves for one is not allowed to bow at the conclusion of a b’rochoh, only where the Rabanan instituted that one must bow there. Otherwise it is prohibited.
  
  Daf 31b
  
  
  
  Daf 32a
  
  
  
  Daf 32b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  PRAYER IS GREATER THAN GOOD DEEDS. The Gemara is saying that T’feeloh, prayer is greater and can accomplish more than meritorious deeds. We see that Moshe Rabainu who certainly had many meritorious deeds was able to get his wishes fulfilled only because of his prayers not because of his deeds. But Moshe when he prayed had both, good deeds and his prayers. How can we prove that prayer is more powerful than good deeds? Tosfos seems to be saying that we truly cannot. The intent of the Gemara is as follows: Prayer is greater than meritorious deeds alone, without prayer. For Moshe Rabainu o’h, even though he had meritorious deeds was not answered by Hashem because of those deeds alone and in order to get his wishes fulfilled he needed prayer to accomplish his goals.1<i class="footnote">Maharsho is very upset with this explanation of Tosfos. Obviously prayer coupled with good deeds is going to be more powerful than good deeds alone. Maharsho says that Tosfos wants to prove that prayer is more important than good deeds, for despite the fact that Moshe had good deeds, he was answered because of his prayers. The verse says that Hashem told him, do not speak to me anymore about this subject and immediately after that he was told that he would be allowed to at least see Eretz Yisroel. The verse is indicating that as a result of his speech to Hashem he was somewhat successful in accomplishing what he set out to accomplish. His success was because of his prayers and not because of his deeds.</i>
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  TO MY TEARS DO NOT BE SILENT. The Gemara presents this verse as proof that although the gates of prayer are closed in the period following the destruction of the temple, the gates of tears remains open. King David prayed “to my tears do not be silent”. How do we see from this verse that the gates of tears are open even when the gates of prayer are not? Rashi explained that this can be deduced not from the simple meaning of the verse, but rather from a deduction. Since the verse does not ask of Hashem “and see my tears”, we know that tears are always seen by Hashem, and we need only pray that they be accepted.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  ANYONE WHO PROLONGS HIS PRAYER AND EXPECTS IT TO BE ANSWERED. When one prays a lengthy t’feeloh and expects to be answered, he will eventually suffer heartache. We are expected to pray and leave the outcome to Hashem. To expect that Hashem will answer our prayer is somewhat pretentious and it has a negative effect. The explanation is: עיון תפלה that will result in heartache occurs when one expects his supplication to be answered because he had proper concentration while he prayed.Tosfos will now show us that there seems to be a contradiction between two Gemaros about whether עיון תפלה is a valuable component in praying or is it perhaps a negative component as it seems from our Gemara. This is bewildering, for here it appears that concentration while praying is not a constructive component of prayer and so too, it appears in perek HoRo’eh (later 55a) where the Gemara says: Three things cause one sins to be remembered, and the Gemara there says that concentration while praying is one of them. Obviously, that is negative. And in perek M’fanin (Shabos 127a) it does not seem that way. For the Gemara says there that there are six things for which a person benefits from their dividends in this world and among them the Gemara lists concentration while praying. We see that it is a positive component.Tosfos offers further proof that intent while praying is a positive component. And so too, it appears in perek Get Poshut (Bovo Basro 164b) where the Gemara says: there are three negative things from which a person is not saved each day. In other words, there are three negative things that a person engages in every day, and the Gemara says that one of them is concentration while praying. The explanation of עיון תפלה in the context of that Gemara is that one does not have proper concentration while praying. If so, it appears that concentration while praying is a positive component. This is a contradiction to our Gemara and the Gemara in perek HoRoeh.And we can answer: that there are two opposite forms of concentration while praying. Although the Gemara uses the same term to describe them, they are opposites. There is the concentration while praying of our Gemara where the person praying is expecting that his supplication will be answered, which is a negative component of prayer, and there is the concentration while praying discussed there in perek M’fanin and in perek Get Poshut that one has proper intent while he prays, which is definitely a positive component of prayer.
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  
  
  Line 23
  
  FROM WHERE [IS IT DERIVED THAT ONE MUST WAIT ONE HOUR] BEFORE HIS PRAYER? AS IT IS STATED: “HAPPY ARE THOSE WHO DWELL IN YOUR HOUSE.” How do we know that one should spend some time preparing himself mentally for prayer before he prays, because it is written “Praiseworthy are the ones who sit in Your house, they will also praise you, seloh”. First they sit and only after spending some time in preparation for prayer do they sing your praises. And for this reason they instituted to say this verse before תהלה לדוד (T’hilim 145). This comes to reject the custom of those who say many verses of אשרי prior to Psalm 145.
  
  Daf 33a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  BUT IF A SCORPION [APPROACHES WHILE HE IS PRAYING], HE STOPS. It is not only when a scorpion attacks that one is allowed to interrupt his prayers. Sometimes, even when a snake attacks one may interrupt his prayers if there is danger. Yerushalmee says that if a snake was coming at him angrily he may interrupt his prayers, because it is coming at him with anger and intending to harm him.When one is allowed to interrupt his prayers, where does he start when the danger is passed? However, we do not find that if he interrupted his prayer that he must start at the beginning, since the Yerushalmee does not specifically say that he must return to the beginning. But he should however return to the beginning of the b’rochoh that he interrupted. And if one erred during the first three b’rochos or the last three b’rochos, he returns to the beginning of the first three b’rochos which is Avos, the b’rochoh dealing with our forefathers, when the error is in the first b’rochos. And he returns to avodoh, the b’rochoh that begins with R’tzay, when the error is in the last b’rochos, as we say later in our perek (34a).
  
  Daf 33b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  HE RECITES: "WE GIVE THANKS, WE GIVE THANKS," [THEY] SILENCE HIM. Yerushalmee says that this rule about silencing one who repeats modim has been said is true when this happens in a congregation, but in private they the repetitive modim are supplication and they need not be silenced. 
  
  Daf 34a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  FROM WHERE DOES [HE] COMMENCE? FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE BLESSING IN WHICH [THE FORMER] HAD ERRED. The Mishna is teaching us that if the sh’leeach tzibur, the leader of the prayers is unable to continue for whatever reason, the one who replaces him must begin at the beginning of the b’rochoh that the first leader started before becoming confused. For example, if the first leader said the words תקע בשופר גדול לחרותינו and could not proceed further, his replacement cannot begin with the words ושא נס לקבץ. He must start the b’rochoh at the beginning with the words תקע בשופר. Tosfos will now teach us that there is an exception to this rule.We learned in Yerushalmee. B’titi who was acting as leader of the congregation became silent at והאופנים in middle of the first b’rochoh prior to the sh’ma. They came to ask R’ Bun where his replacement should begin. He, R’ Bun, said to them in the name of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, the one who went to lead the congregation in his place should start from the place where B’titi stopped, at והאופנים.And Yerushalmee asks: but we have learned in our Mishna the replacement begins at the beginning of the b’rochoh where the first leader became confused. The second leader should have to begin at the beginning of the b’rochoh of אור יוצר. He, R’ Bun, said to them as soon as you said the Sanctification, קדוש קדוש קדוש that is equivalent to the beginning of a b’rochoh. Although the b’rochoh יוצר אור is definitely only one b’rochoh, as far as starting at the beginning when the congregational leader became confused is concerned, והאופנים is the beginning of a second section and the new congregational leader need only begin at והאופנים.1<i class="footnote">See Mishna B’ruroh 59, 28, who says that if the error occurred between והאופנים and לאל ברוך one can start at והאופנים. If the error occurred after לאל ברוך one need only return to ברוך לאל.</i>
  
  Line 3
  
  HE SHOULD NOT RESPOND AMEN AFTER [THE BLESSING OF] THE PRIESTS, BECAUSE OF CONFUSION. The Mishna said that the congregational leader should not answer אמן after the b’rochos of the Kohanim, because he may become confused and not be able to return to his prayer. This is bewildering. The rule that he may not answer אמן should be known1<i class="footnote"> תיפוק ליה literally means – let him take it out. In the context of our Gemara- let it be known to him.</i> because it is an interruption of the prayer that the congregational leader is in middle of saying if he answers אמן.And we can answer: that since the Gemara does not offer this reason for not answering אמן; we can learn from this, that answering אמן is not considered an interruption since it is a requirement of the prayer. Answering אמן to the b’rochos of the Kohanim is essentially accepting their b’rochoh and that is thought of as part of the prayer service and not as an interruption.Tosfos will now discuss a related issue, calling the Kohanim to recite their b’rochoh. In most synagogues the common custom is that the congregational leader calls the Kohanim to say the Birchas Kohanim. We will see further in this Tosfos that immediately after concluding the b’rochoh of modim with the words הטוב שמך ולך נאה להודות the leader would call כהנים. Rabainu Tam says that this is wrong. It is not the function of the congregational leader who is in middle of praying. Rather, it is the function of the sexton. Tosfos will explain that during the days of the Mishna and Gemara, the sexton was called the chazon. Nowadays the chazon is the congregational leader of the prayers. This difference in names of the various functionaries can cause a bit of confusion.But to call the Kohanim to the duchon,2<i class="footnote"> דוכן – literally the platform where the Kohanim stood.</i> says Rabainu Tam, that the congregational leader cannot call them, because it is considered an interruption of the prayers. Rather, one of the members of the congregation calls them.And that which we say in Sotoh perek Ailu Nemorim (38a) that for two kohanim he calls Kohanim etc.3<i class="footnote">As opposed to when there is only one Kohain when he is not called at all.</i> that is not referring to the congregational leader of the prayers, rather, it refers to the chazon, as we have learned in Sifray (Parshas Noso) the Torah says אמור להם, literally say to them the Kohanim, this teaches us that the chazon says to them, recite the b’rochoh.Who is this chazon?And the chazon is not the congregational leader of prayer, for the chazon is the one who is involved in the needs of the congregation. Tosfos offers further proof that the congregational leader does not call the Kohanim to the duchon. And so too, it appears from Sotoh (39b) that the word קורא does not refer to the congregational leader, for initially the Gemara said that the Kohanim may not begin to recite the b’rochoh until the utterance calling Kohanim ceases to reverberate from the mouth of the קורא. This means the קורא, who calls “Kohanim”. And afterwards the Gemara says, the congregational leader is not permitted to etc. Since the Gemara speaks of a קורא and a שליח צבור, a congregational leader, it appears that they are two distinct people. The קורא, who is not the congregational leader, calls the Kohanim to the duchon, while the שליח צבור remains silent.There are those who take this concept of the congregational leader not being allowed to interrupt his prayer a step further. And there are those who want to say that just as the congregational leader is not allowed to call out “Kohanim”, the congregational leader is similarly not allowed to read יברכך before the Kohanim as the custom is that the leader reads each word and the Kohanim recite after him. For that too, is an interruption of his prayer.However, Rabainu Yehudoh explained that it is openly found in the Midrosh of the reasons for words with extra or missing letters, that the word אמור להם with an extra ו, teaches that the congregational leader says to them, that they should recite the particular word for each and every word that the Kohanim say. We see that it is the שליח צבור who must do the reading before the Kohanim.There are those who want to say that even calling out Kohanim is permitted for the congregational leader nowadays. And so too, there are those who want to permit the congregational leader himself to call “Kohanim” even according to Rabainu Tam’s explanation. For that which he explained that it is an interruption, that was specifically in their days when immediately upon finishing the b’rochoh of modim they did not say “Our G-d and the G-d of our fathers, bless us with the blessing etc. as is our custom today. This is evident from Sotoh (ibid.) where the Gemara says the קורא is not permitted to call “Kohanim” until the word אמן ceases to reverberate from the mouths of the congregation. Which אמן is the Gemara referring to? The explanation is the אמן that they answer at the conclusion of the b’rochoh of modim. We see that it is evident that they only said “Kohanim” immediately at the conclusion of the b’rochoh of modim and they did not say “Our G-d and the G-d of our fathers as we do. But now, that it became the custom to say “Our G-d” in the format of a b’rochoh and prayer, this is not an interruption of the prayers, for it is not worse than answering אמן for the b’rochos of the Kohanim, which is not considered an interruption as we have explained earlier.
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  THE MIDDLE [BLESSINGS] HAVE NO [SET] ORDER. Rav Huna says that there are three sections of sh’moneh esray, the first three b’rochos, the middle thirteen and the final three b’rochos. When one errs in any one of the three sections he returns to the beginning of that section. So, if one errs during the first three b’rochos, he starts at the beginning of sh’moneh esray. If he errs during the last three b’rochos he starts again at r’tzay. When he errs during the middle b’rochos Rav Huno holds that he starts again at atoh chonain. This ruling about the middle b’rochos is the subject of a dispute. Rav Asee disagrees with Rav Huno about the middle b’rochos. The term that he uses in voicing his disagreement is that the middle b’rochos have no order. The exact meaning of these words is a dispute between Rashi and Tosfos. Rashi explained that the meaning of “they have no order” is as follows: And if one omitted one b’rochoh and then remembered it in the wrong place, he can say it in the wrong place, wherever he is at that time and he need not repeat any of the b’rochos that he has already said.And this explanation is not clear. For we have learned in a Mishna in M’giloh (17a), one who reads the m’giloh out of sequence has not fulfilled his obligation. And we learned in a Braiso, and so too, for halel and so too, for reciting sh’ma and so too, for prayer. If one says the sh’moneh esray out of sequence, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This contradicts Rashi who says that we can insert a forgotten b’rochoh at any point during the middle b’rochos of sh’moneh esray and we need not repeat any of the b’rochos that we have said.Therefore, the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas appears to be logical. That when Rav Asee says they have no order, that means that he should start from the point that he omitted the b’rochoh and from there and further he should say everything according to the order. For example, if one realized that he omitted רפאנו after he said את צמח he should say רפאנו at that point and continue reciting all the b’rochos from רפאנו on. Even though he already said the b’rochos between רפאנו and את צמח he must repeat them once again. But he certainly does not have to begin again at אתה חונן, as he must do when erring in the first three b’rochos and the last three b’rochos where he must return to the beginning of that section.Tosfos offers proof to the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And there is proof from that which we learned in a Braiso in the Tosefto of our Gemara, he who reads sh’ma and left out one verse, should not read that verse by itself. Rather, he starts from that verse and continues further and completes it till the end. We see that when reciting sh’ma one must say the verse he omitted and continue from that point on so that his recital should not be out of sequence. And we also learned in a Braiso in the second perek of M’giloh (18b) that if one omitted one verse in the m’giloh that he reads according to the order of the m’giloh from that verse and further. And there the Gemara equates prayer to m’giloh as far as this issue of reading out of sequence is concerned, as we explained. The same formula for correcting an error that applies to the sh’ma and to the m’giloh applies to correcting an error in prayer. Namely, saying the b’rochoh that one omitted and continuing on from there.Tosfos will now deal with the halochoh in this dispute between Rav Huno and Rav Asee. And the author of Halochos G’dolos ruled like Rav Asee who says that the middle b’rochos do not have an order for a few reasons. One reason is that Rav Huno is like a student in regard to Rav Asee as we say in many places throughout the Gemara Rav Huno said in the name of Rav Asee. And furthermore, according to Rav Huno one must accept an awkward answer to our Mishna, that all the middle b’rochos are one b’rochoh. When the Gemara challenges Rav Huno with our Mishna that says he returns to the beginning of the b’rochoh in which he erred, Rav Huno must say that it means אתה חונן, which is definitely not the simple understanding of our Mishna. And upon awkward answers we do not want to stand up and rely. And furthermore, Rav Asee and Rav Shaishes who presented the challenge to Rav Huno from our Mishna are of one opinion. And furthermore, in matter of Rabbinic law, the obligation to pray, one should follow the lenient opinion. Rav Asee who says that one need not return to the beginning of אתה חונן is the lenient opinion.Tosfos conclusion is that we follow Rav Asee’s opinion. And if so, a person who erred or omitted a b’rochoh from the middle section of sh’moneh esray or if he did not say המלך המשפט between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur,1<i class="footnote">Tosfos assumes that when one forgets to say המלך המשפט, זכרנו, מי כמוך, וכתוב and בספר החיים he must repeat sh’moneh esray. This is not our custom. We repeat sh’moneh esray only when we forget המלך הקדוש.</i> where the halochoh is in the first perek that he must return to המלך המשפט, he should not return to אתה חונן, rather, to the b’rochoh that he omitted and proceed from there in the regular order. And where he erred in the first three b’rochos, for example he erred at their conclusion2<i class="footnote">Instead of saying אברהם מגן he said הקדוש הקל and later realized his mistake.</i> or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in the b’rochoh of avos, זכרנו, or in the b’rochoh about resurrection of the dead he did not say מי כמוך, or he did not say המלך הקדוש, he must return to the beginning of sh’moneh esray. And where he erred in the last three b’rochos. For example, there as well he erred in the conclusion2<i class="footnote">Instead of saying אברהם מגן he said הקדוש הקל and later realized his mistake.</i> of one of the b’rochos, or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in שים שלום, the special prayer בספר החיים,1<i class="footnote">Tosfos assumes that when one forgets to say המלך המשפט, זכרנו, מי כמוך, וכתוב and בספר החיים he must repeat sh’moneh esray. This is not our custom. We repeat sh’moneh esray only when we forget המלך הקדוש.</i> or he did not mention  וכתוב לחיים טובים in the b’rochoh of modim, he must return to the b’rochoh of avodoh, r’tzay. And the reason that one must return to the beginning of the section is that since it is all praise of Hashem, it is all like one b’rochoh.Tosfos points out another major difference between the explanation of Rashi and the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And on a public fast when the congregational leader has a special b’rochoh for himself, that he says the b’rochoh of עננו, between גואל ישראל and רפאנו, if he forgot it and then remembered that he omitted it, before the conclusion of the prayer, we do not require of him to repeat it, since he would have to return and repeat all of the other b’rochos according to the order of sh’moneh esray, according to Rashbam’s explanation. If so, that would be a b’rochoh in vain, if we required him to repeat it.3<i class="footnote">The halochoh is that one need not repeat sh’mone esray if he forgot עננו. If the leader would return to the proper place for עננו and repeat all the subsequent b’rochos, those b’rochos would be in vain.</i> But according to Rashi’s explanation, he could say it at the point that he remembered and he would not have to repeat any other b’rochos and there would be no b’rochoh in vain.
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  ONE MUST NOT REQUEST HIS OWN NEEDS IN THE FIRST THREE OR IN THE LAST THREE [BLESSINGS]. Rabainu Chananel and Rav Hai explained that this ruling that one should not ask for his needs during the first and last three b’rochos, was said only for an individual, but for the needs of the public, we may ask even during the first and last three b’rochos. And that is why we say זכרנו, קרובץ and יעלה ויבא during these b’rochos. And I will prove that this was specifically said for an individual that the main point of the last b’rochos is the needs of the public. Therefore, one may certainly ask Hashem for the needs of the public while reciting these b’rochos. Just as the ruling against asking for one’s needs does not apply to the public in the last three b’rochos, so too, it does not apply to public needs in the first three b’rochos.
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  THEY TEACH HIM NOT TO BOW.There is no apparent reason why one cannot bow more than the Gemara allows him to bow. And if you ask: and let him bow and what of it?And we can answer: so that he should not come to uproot the words of the sages even when he wants to be more stringent than they. So that they should not say all individuals are stringent as they please and there is no enactment of the sages that brings about harmonious behavior, and also we are concerned about arrogance. Some people will attempt to show off their piety by adopting stringent behavior that is unnecessary. Our Sages opposed this type of individual expression.
  
  Daf 34b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  BOWING UPON ONE'S FACE. The Braiso presents this information about the various types of bowing as if this is an ordinary derivation. We understand that it is evident from this verse that קידה means to bow, so that one’s face touches the floor. The same should be true of the definition of השתחואה it means that one prostrated himself on the floor with outstretched arms and legs. Tosfos is convinced that this is not true. There are other verses that indicate otherwise.1<i class="footnote">Tosfos in Shovuos 16b, quotes three verses that indicate that the meaning of השתחואה is that the face is touching the floor, which seems to contradict what the Braiso is teaching us that קידה means face to the floor. Those verses are:ויוצא יוסף אתם מעם ברכיו וישתחו לאפיו ארצהויקד וישתחו לאפיואפים ארץ ישתחוו לךIn each of these three verses we see the word אפים and לאפיו used together with השתחואה. Tosfos sees that as a contradiction to our Braiso. See Tosfos HoRosh who offers a solution to Tosfos’ problem. See also Maharsho who quotes a verse in Sh’mos 34, 8, ויקד ארצה וישתחו In this verse we find קידה together with ארצה..</i> The Braiso tells us the definition of these terms based on a traditional teaching available to the author of the Braiso. The use of the verses is for us to remember the definitions and by linking them mentally to these verses. Tosfos here in Maseches B’rachos does not elaborate about his sources. We must explore other Tosfos in Maseches M’giloh and in Maseches Shovuos for greater clarity in this matter. And the Braiso cites a verse to prove its point, that קידה means that one bows with his face to the earth and השתחואה means that one prostrates himself.Tosfos makes us aware that this conclusion based on the verses is problematic. Even though we also find other verses that indicate otherwise,1<i class="footnote">Tosfos in Shovuos 16b, quotes three verses that indicate that the meaning of השתחואה is that the face is touching the floor, which seems to contradict what the Braiso is teaching us that קידה means face to the floor. Those verses are:ויוצא יוסף אתם מעם ברכיו וישתחו לאפיו ארצהויקד וישתחו לאפיואפים ארץ ישתחוו לךIn each of these three verses we see the word אפים and לאפיו used together with השתחואה. Tosfos sees that as a contradiction to our Braiso. See Tosfos HoRosh who offers a solution to Tosfos’ problem. See also Maharsho who quotes a verse in Sh’mos 34, 8, ויקד ארצה וישתחו In this verse we find קידה together with ארצה..</i> if so, how can we conclude that these definitions are correct, perhaps we should follow the other verses?We can answer: That it was known to the Tano from tradition that קידה means to bow to the extent that one’s face touches the ground. The verse is not the source of this information. It is the tradition that the Tano received from his teachers that the meaning of the word קידה is that the face touches the ground. And he cites the verse that proves his point. This verse does in fact speak of קידה as bowing with the face touching the ground. Even though it is not the source of the information it can certainly be used to show that the word does in fact mean that.
  
  Line 4
  
  I SAW ABAYE AND RAVA, WHO WOULD LEAN [THEIR HEADS]. See the Gemara in M’giloh 22b, where it says that a person, who is well known for his piety, should not fall on his face while reciting תחנון. The Gemara there relates that Abaye and Rovo avoided this problem by not falling directly on their faces. דמצלו אצלויי means that they leaned on their sides in order to avoid the ban for an honored person to fall on his face while reciting תחנון.
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  HE SHOULD FOCUS HIS HEART ON ONE OF THEM. The Gemara said that if one cannot concentrate properly on the entire sh’moneh esray, he should at least concentrate on the first b’rochoh. It seems that one fulfills his obligation to pray even when concentrating on only the first b’rochoh. And that which we said at the end of perek T’filas Hashachar (30b), that a person must always assess his ability to concentrate, if he estimates that he can concentrate he should pray and if he estimates that he cannot concentrate he should not pray. On the surface it would seem from that Gemara that he must be able to concentrate for the entire prayer, since the Gemara speaks of his ability to pray, we should assume that it means an entire prayer and that concentration for one b’rochoh is not sufficient.We can explain that there is no contradiction and the Gemara there as well means that he must assess whether he is capable of concentrating for one of the b’rochos.
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  
  
  Line 23
  
  
  
  Line 24
  
  
  
  Line 25
  
  
  
  Line 26
  
  
  
  Line 27
  
  
  
  Line 28
  
  
  
  Line 29
  
  
  
  Line 30
  
  I CONSIDER IMPUDENT ONE WHO PRAYS IN A FIELD. See Artscroll note 41. And if you ask: but it is written that Yitzchok went out to pray in the field (Braishis 24). Certainly it would be logical that we could follow the behavior of our father Yitzchok, who actually initiated the Minchoh prayer at that time. We can answer: that there the verse is speaking about Mt. Moriah the eventual Temple Mount, as we say in P’sochim perek Ho’eeshoh (88a) in reference to the Temple Mount being referred to as a mountain, the Gemara says not like Yitzchok who called it a field etc., we see that our Sages knew by means of tradition that the field discussed in the verse is Mt. Moriah. The Temple Mount is an area designated for prayer and as such it is no contradiction to our Gemara which is speaking of praying in a field that is not designated for prayer.Tosfos suggests a second approach to reconcile the two Gemaros. Alternatively, we can answer that the valley of fields mentioned here is speaking about a valley where it is common for people to pass by and is used by road travelers. Because people travel there, it is difficult to concentrate while praying. It is arrogant for one to pray there, because he seems to be saying that I am capable of praying properly even in a place where there are distractions. On the Temple Mount there were no distractions when Yitzchok prayed there. We cannot learn from Yitzchok’s behavior that it is permitted to pray in an area where there are likely to be distractions.
  
  Line 31
  
  [WHOSE] TRANSGRESSION IS COVERED OVER. The Psalmist praises one who covers his sins, i.e. he does not tell others that he has sinned. Why is this especially praiseworthy? And the reason that this is praiseworthy is because that when a person does not tell others that he has sinned it shows that he is ashamed that he sinned. However, if one tells others that he has sinned it appears that he is not ashamed about his sin, and we have said earlier in the first perek (12b) whosoever does something, a sin, and is embarrassed because of the sin, he is forgiven immediately. Being embarrassed about the sin which brings about forgiveness is therefore praiseworthy.
  
  Daf 35a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  HOW DOES ONE RECITE A BLESSING? The word כיצד literally, how, is usually used when the Mishna previously spoke of a rule or a mitzvoh that one is obligated to perform. Then the Mishna leads with the question, כיצד how is that obligation to be performed? Tosfos will explain why that does not apply to the law requiring that one recite b’rochos. It is not possible to ask here; to what previously mentioned ruling is the Tano referring when asking: how, as the Gemara asks at the beginning of this Maseches (2a), because here it is logical that there is an obligation to recite a b’rochoh, as the Gemara concludes that it is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a b’rochoh. Since it is logical that there is an obligation, the question: how, refers to this logic. There need not be a specific ruling in the Mishna to which the question is referring.Alternatively, we can answer, that the question, how, refers to the Mishna in Mee Shemaiso (20b) that teaches a baal keree recites a b’rochoh after a meal, and does not recite a b’rochoh before a meal. The Mishna is clearly referring to an obligation to recite a b’rochoh. It is only saying that one does not recite that b’rochoh when a baal keree. And so too, here it is feasible to recite a b’rochoh on each and every thing; therefore the Gemara asks here, how one recites a b’rochoh that he is required to recite as we have seen in Mee Shemaiso.
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  REDEEM IT AND THEN EAT IT. The Gemara initially said that the meaning of the double praise is that one must recite two b’rochos, one before and one after drinking wine. The Gemara rejected this, because the word הלול is needed to teach us that one must first redeem the fruit and only then is he allowed to eat them. It appears from the Gemara that the use of the word הלול for this purpose is a given and there is no alternative way of knowing this rule. The Gemara never challenges this question. Tosfos wonders why? This is bewildering. Why do we need this verse הלול, at all? For in the second perek of Kidushin (54b) we derive that an additional fifth must be added when redeeming fruits of the fourth year and that the fruit must be removed from one’s possession during the third and sixth years of the sh’meetoh cycle, via the method of a common word, from the word קדש1<i class="footnote">בשנה הרביעת יהיה כל פריו קדש הילולים ליהוה:</i> that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year and the word קדש that appears in reference to מעשר שני,2<i class="footnote">וכל מעשר הארץ מזרע הארץ מפרי העץ ליהוה הוא קדש ליהוה:</i> the second tithe. If so, this rule as well, that one must redeem fruits of the fourth year before eating them should be derived from מעשר שני via the same common word system. Why do we need the word הלולים at all to teach us that fruits of the fourth year must be redeemed? And we can answer: if not for the verse הלולים, I would say that the reverse is true, we should derive a stringency via the system of a common word, the word קדש that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year from the word קדש3<i class="footnote">כי יובל הוא קדש תהיה לכם מן הדשה תאכלו את תבואתה:</i> that appears in reference to shmeetoh, and there should be no redemption allowed for the fruits of the fourth year. Just as there is no possible redemption of the fruits of sh’meetoh, so too, there should be no redemption of the fourth year fruits and they must be brought to Jerusalem to be eaten. It is because we have the word הלולים that we know to make the more lenient derivation from מעשר שני.Tosfos suggests another way of answering his original question. Why is the word הלולים needed, when we have the common word קדש that can be used as a source that fourth year fruit needs to be redeemed?4<i class="footnote">In order to avoid confusion we must keep in mind that the term fourth year fruit means that it is the fourth year since they were planted. The nuber of the year has nothing to do with the shmeetoh cycle. Thus fourth year fruit can happen at any time of the shmeetoh cycle. It should not happen on the third year, since that would mean that it was planted during the shmeetoh year which is forbidden.</i> Alternatively, Rabainu Chaim Kohain Said that if the source would be the redemption of מעשר שני, I would say that it is totally like מעשר שני. And only at such time that מעשר שני is in effect such as in the first, second, third and fourth years of the shmeetoh cycle is the redemption of fourth year fruits in effect. However, during the third and sixth years when there is only מעשר עני I might say that fourth year fruits cannot be redeemed, therefore the Torah taught us the word חלולים that teaches us that during all years of the shmeetoh cycle one may redeem fourth year fruits.
  ONE ONLY RECITES A SONG [OF PRAISE] OVER WINE. This statement seems to be saying that there never is an instance when song is recited without wine. Tosfos shows that this is clearly untrue. We must therefore find some other possible meaning for the Gemara’s statement. What is meant is that we do not recite a song for any consumption1<i class="footnote">מזבח אכילת literally means the eating of the altar as if the altar is capable of eating. Chazal use this metaphor because it is used in Scripture as well. What is meant is the items that are consumed by the altar.</i> of the altar, for example, sprinkling blood or pouring water on the Sucos holiday, but certainly we find song without wine that does not involve consumption on the altar. For example, the Halel that is recited during the slaughtering of the Pesach sacrifice (Tomid Nishchat 64a) that is certainly a case of song without wine, but it does not represent a contradiction to our Gemara, because our Gemara is discussing song that is sung while something is being offered on the altar.
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  ACCORDING TO THE ONE WHO TAUGHT, [AS A RULE]: A FOURTH-YEAR GRAPEVINE ETC. Tosfos is showing us how this dispute affects us even today. And nowadays we hold that the status of fourth year fruits are in effect even outside of Eretz Yisroel. However, it is in effect only for vineyards and not for other trees. For whosoever is lenient in Eretz Yisroel, the Halochoh is like him outside of Eretz Yisroel. Since there is a position that maintains that even in Eretz Yisroel, only fruit of the vine is subject to the laws of the fourth year, we outside of Eretz Yisroel follow that opinion.What do we do with vineyards of the fourth year? And the fruit of the vineyard of the fourth year nowadays, we transfer the sanctity to the amount of a p’rutah,1<i class="footnote">The rule is that when one transfers sanctity from an item that is worth one hundred dollars to a coin worth a penny, the transfer is effective. One is initially not allowed to do this, because he is cheating the Temple Treasury fund, but if he did do it is valid. Nowadays when there is nothing one can possibly do with the fourth year fruits, it is permissible to initially transfer the sanctity to a very small coin.</i> a very small coin, and one grinds it and throws it into a river, so that nobody should accidentally violate its sanctity. And so is it clearly stated in the Sh’iltos of Rav Achai (Parshas K’doshim Simon 100).
  
  Daf 35b
  
  
  
  Daf 36a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  HE SHOULD NOT GARGLE. Rashi explained that one may not put oil in his mouth when he has a sore throat with the intent of leaving it there for a while so that it will soothe his sore throat.Tosfos understands that Rashi holds that if he would swallow the oil immediately without allowing the oil to bathe the sore area in his throat, that would be permissible. And if you ask: if so, let the Tano make a distinction within the case of drinking pure oil and teach us that it is sometimes permissible in the very same case. Why did the Tano have to speak of adding oil to anigron to show us a permissible case, even pure oil is permitted if one swallows it immediately, for it is only forbidden to bathe the throat, which is to keep the oil in the throat for some time?1<i class="footnote">See Artscroll note 3, for a defense of Rashi’s explanation.</i> Tosfos is dissatisfied with Rashi’s explanation and offers his own. Rashi’s explanation is predicated on his translation of the word יערענו which means to bathe the throat by keeping the oil there for some time. Tosfos will explain that יערענו need not necessarily mean that one bathe the throat by keeping the oil there. Therefore R”I explains, that לא יערענו, means that it is forbidden to drink oil even if one swallows the oil immediately without keeping the oil in his throat for a while. For any drinking that is only for medicinal purposes is called ערעור even when one swallows it immediately. And this is the reason that it is forbidden because it is evident when one drinks pure oil that his intention is for medicinal purposes which is prohibited on Shabos.Alternatively, we can defend Rashi’s explanation as follows: the first sentence of the Braiso remains the same do not bathe the throat by keeping the oil there for some time. In the second sentence of the Braiso we will have a new understanding of the words. We will divide the sentence in two. The first part of the sentence is: But he may put oil into anigron even to keep it in his throat for a while. The second part of the sentence is: Or he may swallow it unadulterated without keeping the oil in his throat.
  
  Line 4
  
  SINCE HE DERIVED PLEASURE FROM IT, HE MUST RECITE A BLESSING. And it appears that the matter is as follows: That if one drinks liquids, if the liquid is bad to drink to the extent that he has no pleasure from it, he need not recite a b’rochoh.
  
  Daf 36b
  
  
  
  Daf 37a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  WHO CREATES THE MANY FORMS OF LIFE AND THEIR NEEDS FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE CREATED. Tosfos will teach us the meaning of this b’rochoh which is recited so often. וחסרונם and that which they lack, refers to necessities such as bread and water, without which it is impossible to survive.After thanking Hashem for the necessities we add: Together with all that he created to give life through them for all the living. This means that Hashem created the necessities together with all else that there is in this world, that even if he had not created them the world would still be able to live without them. For he created them only for mere enjoyment such as apples and similar foods. And we conclude this b’rochoh with, blessed is the source of life of the worlds. And in Yerushalmee the conclusion is blessed are you Hashem the source of life of the worlds.
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  WHEN THE SLICES ARE INTACT. The Braiso says that when one cooks baked bread; if the pieces are intact one recites המוציא and ברכת המזון. Tosfos offers a definition of intact pieces. There are those who say that a piece of bread is considered intact when the bread is not so water-soaked that it will break if a piece is taken.
  
  Line 7
  
  RASHI EXPLAINED THAT אורז IS MILLET. And there are those who say that אורז is rice. And according to this explanation we can say that דוחן is millet.
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  A CONCLUSIVE REFUTATION OF RAV AND SHMUEL. The Gemara contradicted Rav and Shmuel who said that one does not recite בורא מיני מזונות on rice from a Braiso that clearly says one does recite בורא מיני מזונות when eating rice. The contradiction from the Braiso is exclusively about their opinion on rice, but about דוחן, millet, there is no contradiction. And it is possible that the halochoh is like them as far as millet is concerned and we do not recite on it, millet, בורא מיני מזונות.
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  ONE WHO CHEWS WHEAT RECITES: WHO CREATES FRUIT OF THE GROUND. Tosfos wants to demonstrate the logic of reciting בורא פרי האדמה on a kernel of raw wheat. For even for wheat flour we said earlier that we recite בורא פרי האדמה. If one recites בורא פרי האדמה on tasteless flour, he should certainly recite that b’rochoh on a kernel which is tastier and more edible.And according to Rav Nachmon who does not hold like that, and says that on wheat flour we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו, that is because the wheat has been changed through the grinding process from its original form and it therefore loses the special b’rochoh of פרי בורא האדמה, but ehen we are dealing with the original kernel as it grows even Rav Nachmon agrees that the correct b’rochoh is בורא פרי האדמה.Tosfos is quite sure about the b’rochoh recited before one eats the kernel of wheat, but he has some doubts about the b’rochoh to be recited after eating the kernel of wheat. However, as far as the b’rochoh to be recited after eating there is a doubt what the correct b’rochoh is. Should we perhaps recite על המחיה ועל הכלכלה at the beginning of the after-b’rochoh and then conclude with על האדמה ועל פרי האדמה?Tosfos explains why he is a bit hesitant about this b’rochoh. For we do not find the b’rochoh על המחיה ועל הכלכלה only when we recite before eating the food בורא מיני מזונות and since when eating a kernel of wheat we do not say  בורא מיני מזונות perhaps we should not say על המחיה ועל הכלכלה. And Rabainu Tam inserted in his Machzor על האדמה ועל פרי האדמה etc. And he retracted because we do not find this b’rochoh any place in Talmudic sources. For later (44a) the Gemara explains the b’rochoh that is similar to three b’rochos, which is  על המחיה ועל הכלכלה that has within its text some of each of the three b’rochos of the b’rochoh recited after meals, and the Gemara says, for the five species of grain one says על הארץ ועל המחיה. And for the seven species that the Torah mentions to praise the goodness of Eretz Yisroel one says על הארץ ועל הפירות. And a b’rochoh for על האדמה ועל פרי האדמה is not mentioned. This indicates that there is no such b’rochoh.Tosfos offers further proof that no such b’rochoh exists. And furthermore, since the Braiso says here about one who chews a kernel of wheat that he recites בורא פרי האדמה and in this sentence says nothing about reciting על המחיה after eating the kernel, and in the very next sentence the Braiso clearly says that when one ground the kernel and baked it into bread etc, till the sentence, if the pieces are not intact he recites בורא מיני מזונותand afterwards one b’rochoh that is similar to three, where he clearly does mention the obligation of saying על המחיה after eating. And since he does not teach us here in the first sentence about one who chews a kernel of wheat that he recites after eating the one b’rochoh that is similar to three b’rochos, we can see from this that when chewing a kernel of wheat there is no b’rochoh that is similar to three after chewing the kernel of wheat.The analysis of the text of our Braiso shows that there is no b’rocho of על המחיה to be recited after chewing a wheat kernel. There is another Braiso at the top of 37b that might indicate otherwise. Tosfos wants to show us how Rabainu Tan will deal with that Braiso. And that which the Braiso says on 37b, that whatever is of the species of grain and one did not make it into bread etc. and the Rabanan say that one recites after eating them one b’rocho that is similar to three, and this might include chewing a wheat kernel, that is speaking of when he made the grains like a cereal because that is a important way of eating wheat, but one who chews a raw kernel of wheat which is not such a significant way of eating wheat even though it is of the five species he does not recite a b’rochoh that is similar to three afterwards. Rather one recites בורא נפשות רבות etc.However, the R’I says that there is a doubt that perhaps the Rabanan did include chewing a wheat kernel in that Braiso that speaks about species of grain that he did not make into bread etc. and the Rabanan say that we must recite one b’rochoh that is similar to three. These words of the Braiso may hav intended to include one who chews a wheat kernel and may be saying that one is required to recite על המחיה after chewing a kernel of wheat. And it is proper to be stringent in this matter, that one should not eat toasted grain or cooked kernels of wheat only in the middle of a meal, for then the ברכת המזון that is recited after the meal will free them from reciting a special b’rochoh. This stringency is required only if they did not become very soft during the cooking, for then if they did become soft they are considered like cereal and one certainly recites על המחיה after cereal.Although the Gemara ruled that kuva made in the ground, which is a pastry type dough one recites בורא מיני מזונות, when Mar Zutro established his meal around the kuva he recited המוציא לחם מן הארץ on the kuva and ברכת המזון afterwards. And the same is true of crackers. If one establishes his meal on crackers he recites המוציא לחם מן הארץ.1<i class="footnote">The text of Tosfos clearly says that crackers has the same rule as kuva bread and if one establishes his meal on crackers that should be considered establishing a meal and he should definitely be required to say המוציא לחם מן הארץ. When Tosfos relates that Rabainu Maier ruled that one should not establish his Purim meal on crackers because he has a doubt about whether crackers has the same rule as kuva bread. Something is missing. At First Tosfos was quite sure that crackers have the same ruling and then he was in doubt. See Rosh simon 11, in the notes added. You will see that there initially was a doubt about the status of crackers. Some thought that the kuva bread may have been a thicker type of dough than crackers and therefore one cannot derive the rule of crackers from kuva bread.</i> And so did Rabainu Maier command that on Purim when they establish the meal on crackers they should recite המוציא לחם מן הארץ on bread first so that the crackers will not require a b’rochoh, since they will be eaten in middle of the meal, for he was in doubt if establishing a meal on crackers is considered establishing a meal or not.2<i class="footnote">See previous note. The Kuva bread may have been made from a thicker dough than crackers and if so, even if one establishes his meal on crackers he may not be required to recite המוציא לחם מן הארץ.</i>
  
  Daf 37b
  
  
  
  Daf 38a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  OVER THIS DATE HONEY ONE RECITES: BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS [CAME TO BE]. The honey that oozes out of dates is not treated as the fruit of the date and we do not recite בורא פרי העץ when eating it rather שהכל נהיה בדברו. Tosfos informs us that this is not an isolated ruling for date honey, but applies to all liquids extracted from fruit with the exception of grapes and olives. And the same is true that we recite  שהכל נהיה בדברו for liquids from all species of fruit with the exception of wine and oil as we say in regard to orloh, the fruits of the first three years.1<i class="footnote">The Mishna says in  תרומות,  Chapter  11,  Mishna  3, One only receives lashes for ingesting orloh only on that which comes out of olives and grapes. We see that only oil and wine are considered fruits all other juices are thought of as “sweat” of the fruit and not the fruit proper.</i>Tosfos is taking our Gemara at face value that date honey does not have the status of fruit even though the Torah refers to dates as honey. And this opinion comes to exclude the opinion of Halochos G’dolos who explained that the date honey that we ruled requires only  שהכל נהיה בדברו, is speaking of when one mixed water into the date honey. If it is undiluted the b’rochoh is בורא פרי העץ. Halochos G’dolos holds that since the Torah refers to the date itself as honey, obviously the honey must be the primary product of the date and should therefore be considered a fruit and require בורא פרי העץ.Since we are discussing the proper b’rochos for juices and liquids extracted from various fruits, Tosfos now considers the correct b’rochoh for “our”2<i class="footnote">The beer that the Gemara generally refers to is beer that is date based. Our beer refers to European beer that is grain based.</i> beer which is made from various grains. And our beer, even though there is a possibility that that there is the equivalent of an olive of grain in the mixture that could be drunk within the time it takes to eat a half-bread,3<i class="footnote">A half-bread is the equivalent of four cubic eggs. In certain areas of Torah law when there is the equivalent of an olive in a mixture that could be consumed within the time it takes to eat four cubic eggs of the mixture it is considered as if the olive size is still intact. Tosfos considers that we might have to establish the b’rochoh for the olive size of grain since there is   enough grain in the mixture that it could be drunk in the time it takes to eat the equivalent of four cubic eggs.</i> we do not recite בורא מיני מזונות, rather we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו. And even according to Rav and Shmuel who say that whatever has in it from the five grains we recite בורא מיני מזונות, here, the beer, does not have tangible barley in it, only a mere taste of the barley, and a taste is insufficient to cause that the b’rochoh should be בורא מיני מזונות, there must be tangible barley in the mixture.And furthermore, בורא מיני מזונות should not be recited on beer, because it, the barley, could reach a higher level of importance if it were baked into bread. Since beer is not the ultimate use of barley, it does not warrant the more important b’rochos of מזונות מיני בורא. And furthermore, when drinking one recites שהכל נהיה בדברו.4<i class="footnote">The  ב"חsays that Tosfos is referring to the next Gemara that  speaks of two types of shattisa. The Gemara says that on loose shattisa we recite שהכל נהיה בדברו not בורא מיני מזונות. This is a bit puzzling, because the Gemara says that the reason we recite  שהכל נהיה בדברו is because it is drunk for medicinal purposes. It seems that if one would drink liquidly shattisa as an enjoyable drink the b’rochoh would be  בורא מיני מזונות. See Rosh, Chapter 12, and טוב יום מעדני 1, at the bottom of the page, who quotes Rabainu Yonoh. He says that the Gemara there does not mean that because something is eaten for medicinal purposes it loses its regular b’rochoh, rather the Gemara means that despite the fact that one is eating food for medicinal purposes, it is still required to recite a b’rochoh and the b’rochoh to be recited is its regular b’rochoh as a food.</i>
  
  Daf 38b
  
  
  
  Daf 39a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  IT LACKS THE [REQUISITE] MEASURE? The Gemara asked: How did R’ Yochonon recite a b’rochoh when eating a salted olive? Certainly the pit had been removed and there was not a minimum amount of food equal to the size of an olive. The Gemara acknowledges the question and explains how R’ Yochonon did have food equal to the size of an olive. Since we see that the Gemara acknowledges the question we can learn from this that there is a minimum amount required in order to recite a b’rochoh. Tosfos will teach us that a minimum amount is required only for an after-b’rochoh and not for the b’rochoh before eating. See Rashi ד'ה בצר ליה שיעורא.It is exclusively for an after-b’rochoh that a minimum amount is required, but for a b’rochoh before one eats or drinks, even for less than a minimum amount a b’rochoh is recited, for it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a b’rochoh, both for the issue of eating or the issue of drinking. But for the after-b’rochoh, it is required that one must drink a cheek full. Therefore one must be careful to drink from the cup of b’rochoh, used for reciting Birchas Hamozon, a cheek full so that he will recite the b’rochoh of על הגפן after drinking of that cup.The requirement of a minimum amount may not apply equally to all foods. And R’I used to say that for בורא נפשות, since it is not an important b’rochoh as compared to Birchas Hamozon and על המחיה even for less than a minimum amount we recite בורא נפשות רבות.Tosfos rejects R’I’s opinion. And this explanation does not appear to be correct. Since בורא נפשות was enacted to be said in place of על הגפן, just as על הגפן requires a minimum amount, so too, בורא נפשות also requires a minimum amount.Yerushalmee has a different approach to R’ Yochonon’s salted olive. And in Yerushalmee we find: How did R’ Yochonon recite a b’rochoh on the olive, there was no minimum amount? And he says, because it, the olive, is a complete entity. For even if one ate only one grape or seed of a pomegranate, a b’rochoh must be recited because for a complete entity we recite a b’rochoh even for less than an olive size. And the Yerushalmee is disagreeing with our Gemara. Since our Gemara does not offer that answer, it obviously does not agree with it. If so, the halochoh is not like the Yerushalmee. When there is a disagreement between Bavlee and Yerushalmee we follow Bavlee.Perhaps the two Talmudim can be reconciled?  And HoRav Yosaif used to explain that the Yerushalmee does not argue with our Gemara. For here in Bavlee, we are speaking of when the pit was removed and it was salted, if so, it is not as it was created, but if he would eat it complete even if it was only one seed of a pomegranate one recites a b’rochoh before and after.And the Yerushalmee Gemara held that the olive that R’ Yochonon ate was whole, and it therefore needed to answer the way it did, that the reason he recited an after-b’rochoh was because he ate a piece that was a whole entity. And the two Talmudim are not in disagreement about the issue of reciting a b’rochoh on a complete entity, rather our Gemara understood that this was not the case of R’ Yochonon. Our Gemara also agrees that when one eats a complete entity, he must recite an after-brochoh even though it was less than a minimum amount.Yerushalmee deals with another issue about reciting b’rochos. And we find further in Yerushalmee, when one recited a b’rochoh on a turmus bean in order to eat it and it fell from his hands and he took another turmus bean in its place, he must recite a b’rochoh another time. And Yerushalmee asks: why is this different than a canal of flowing water? The explanation of the question: That one recites a b’rochoh to drink water and as he recites the b’rochoh, the water that was there when he said the b’rochoh flows away, and the water that he actually drinks is other water. And one does not need to recite a second b’rochoh.And the Yerushalmee answers: here, in regard to the water, his mind initially was aware of this reality, that the water that he would  drink is not the water that was there when he recited the b’rochoh, for he knew that the water that was in front of him when he said the b’rochoh would go away. However, in regard to the turmus bean that fell after he said a b’rochoh, he did not know that it would fall from his hand and he recited the b’rochoh for that turmus bean, which is no longer here.What must one do to correct the situation?And he should say: blessed is the name of his glorious kingdom forever and ever, because he said a b’rochoh in vain. And so it is proper to say on any b’rochoh in vain, blessed is the name of his glorious kingdom forever and ever.1<i class="footnote">The simplest understanding of how this corrects the sin is that the b’rochoh said in vain is a violation of “you shall not say the name of Hashem your G-d in vain”. By immediately declaring ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד one is showing that he truly does honor the name of Hashem.</i> 
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  [THAT WHICH HE] PREFERS [TAKES] PRECEDENCE. Tosfos discusses many factors that determine which b’rochoh one must recite first when there are many different species of food before him. And that is the halochoh that as far as upon which fruit one recites the b’rocho the favorite food takes precedence. If one has two types of fruit before him, the favorite food takes precedence.We have learned that the favorite takes precedence when the b’rocho to be recited is the same; both are שהכל נהיה בדברו or both are בורא פרי האדמה. We will now learn which food takes precedence for a b’rochoh when the b’rochos to be recited are not the same.  And בורא פרי האדמה precedes שהכל נהיה בדברו   because it is more  specific than שהכל. Since שהכל is used for a wide variety of foods and בורא פרי האדמה is used specifically for fruits of the earth. And it is called an important b’rochoh. And one should recite the b’rochoh on that food for which you recite בורא פרי האדמהeven though the other species upon which one recites a שהכל is his favorite.There is another factor that must be considered when determining upon which food to recite a b’rochoh, that the fruit is one of the species which the Torah uses to praise Eretz Yisroel. And if one has before him fruits that have the same b’rochoh, such as an apple and a grape, and one of them is from the seven species that are used in the Torah to praise Eretz Yisroel, in this case the grape, he should first recite the b’rochoh on the fruit which is of the seven species, the grape, because they take precedence.1<i class="footnote">See Shulchon Oruch 211, for a detailed discussion of the halochos.</i>
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  BEET WATER [HAS THE SAME STATUS] AS BEETS. We recite on the beet soup בורא פרי האדמה even though the soup has in it only the juice of the beet and its taste; one recites a b’rochoh upon the soup as he recites on the vegetable itself. Even though we have learned earlier (38a) that fruit juice is merely sweat of the fruit and not fruit itself and we therefore recite שהכל נהיה בדברו, one can differentiate between the two.1<i class="footnote">Much has been written about the difference between fruit juices and soups. See Artscroll note 32 for a complete list of the various differences between fruit juices and soup. Some of the more readily understood differences are as follows: a) Rashbo says that the difference is the intent of the planter. Fruits are generally planted to be eaten, not to be drunk as juice, therefore when squeezed into juice they are considered as being reduced in importance and a lesser b’rochoh is recited. Whereas vegetables are planted so that one can use them for soup. When they are made into soup they are realizing their full potential and an important b’rochoh בורא פרי האדמה is recited. According to this opinion juices that are extracted from juice oranges that are planted specifically for their juice require a בורא פרי העץ. b) Rabainu Yonoh says that fruit juices have taken a turn for the worse when squeezed for juice, whereas vegetables are improved when prepared as soup.</i>
  
  Daf 39b
  
  
  
  Daf 40a
  
  
  
  Daf 40b
  
  
  
  Daf 41a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  HOWEVER, WHEN THEIR BLESSINGS ARE NOT THE SAME. Rashi explained, for example a radish and an olive,1<i class="footnote">The example Rashi uses, an olive and a radish, was not chosen randomly. The Gemara in its challenge against Ulo quotes a Braios that is discussing an olive and a radish. We see from the Gemara’s question that Ula’s statement is referring to an olive and a radish.</i> the b’rochoh for the radish is האדמה and the b’rochoh for the olive is בורא פרי העץ. And there is no dispute between the Rabanan and R’ Yehudoh, since the b’rochoh for one does not free the other of a b’rochoh, even R’ Yehudoh agrees that there is no precedence for the seven species, rather, one recites a b’rochoh on whichever one he wants, the favorite,2<i class="footnote">This expression is a bit puzzling. Tosfos speaks of the one he want and the favorite. Arte these one and the same or are they perhaps different. The Rosh holds that the favorite means the one that he usually prefers, even though at this point in time he may want to eat the other one first. According to the Rosh one must choose the fruit that he usually prefers. The Rambam holds that חביב is the one that he wants to eat now and he need not consider what he usually prefers.</i> and afterwards he recites a b’rochoh on the second one.3<i class="footnote">According to this explanation of the Gemara, this is a statement that when one has a choice between an olive and a radish he can choose to recite a b’rochoh on the fruit he favors. He may choose the olive or the radish. He need not consider that the olive has a b’rochoh that is more specific than the radish.</i>This explanation assumes that when we say that when the b’rochos are the same there is no dispute, it means that R, Yehudoh agrees that in this case the uniqueness of the seven species is not in effect and one need not consider their advantage when choosing upon which fruit the b’rochoh will be recited. One could just as easily have said that it is the Rabanan that agree with R’ Yehudoh that we do not look at the advantage of the favorite when determining which b’rochoh to recite. Tosfos explains why the approach that he took is more reasonable. And this is how we should explain the Gemara, that R’ Yehudoh agrees to the Rabanan. Since the Gemara does not tell us who agrees to whom, it is better to say that the individual agrees to the majority and not that the majority agrees to the individual.We are working with an assumption that when the b’rochos are the same one will recite a b’rochoh on one fruit and not need recite a b’rochoh on the other fruit. When the b’rochos are not the same, one will have to recite a different b’rochoh on each fruit and that is why R’ Yehudoh agrees to the Rabanan that the seven species do not have any special significance in this situation. Rashi wonders why are we so convinced that when we have a radish and an olive that there must be two different b’rochos. And Rashi asked: he should recite a b’rochoh on the radish and free the olive of its b’rochoh, for we have learned in a Mishna, if one recites on fruits of the tree בורא פרי האדמה, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, when one recites בורא פרי האדמה on the radish, this should cover the olive as well, since if he had recited that b’rochoh for the radish he would have fulfilled his obligation.And Rashi answered, that there on 40a it is different, for there is only one species and he erred and recited בורא פרי האדמה instead of בורא פרי העץ. The b’rochoh was intended for that fruit and since it is in fact a פרי האדמה de facto one has fulfilled his obligation. But here when one has a radish and an olive before him when he recited בורא פרי האדמה on the radish it does not cover the b’rochoh for its associate, the olive, even de facto, because the b’rochoh was intended for the radish and not for the olive at all.Tosfos raises another question about the laws governing which b’rochoh is to be recited first. And if you ask: but we have learned earlier (39a) by the story of Bar Kaporo that the b’rochoh of בורא פרי האדמה is more significant than the b’rochoh of שהכל because it is more specific and that is why one should recite a בורא פרי האדמה before reciting a שהכל. If so, בורא פרי העץ is more significant than the b’rochoh of בורא פרי האדמה and one should be required to recite the b’rochoh for the olive first. And we can answer: that בורא פרי העץ is not considered so much more significant than בורא פרי האדמה as בורא פרי האדמה is more significant than שהכל נהיה בדברו. שהכל נהיה בדברו essentially describes all of creation, and all the foods that were created, בורא פרי האדמה on the other hand speaks only of vegetation, a relatively narrow field as compared to all foods that are available. The difference between all of creation and vegetation is much greater than the difference between all vegetation and fruit trees.Halochos G’dolos does insist that we must take into account that בורא פרי העץ is more specific than בורא פרי האדמה and that when a question arises as to which b’rochoh should be recited first we must give preferential treatment to the בורא פרי האדמה. Tosfos says that we cannot reconcile Halochos G’dolos with this juncture of the Gemara. And that which is written in Halochos G’dolos that בורא פרי העץ must come before בורא פרי האדמה because it is more specific, that is only true according to the conclusion later that they, the Rabanan and R’ Yehudoh, disagree even when the b’rochos on the two fruits are not the same, and we rule in accordance with R’ Yehudoh. According to that conclusion we can say that the specificity of בורא פרי העץ must be taken into account.But according to the present version of this dispute in which we say that they only argue when the b’rochos are the same, and that when they are not the same there is no dispute the ruling of Halochos G’dolos cannot be reconciled with our Gemara’s position at this juncture, as we explained earlier.3<i class="footnote">According to this explanation of the Gemara, this is a statement that when one has a choice between an olive and a radish he can choose to recite a b’rochoh on the fruit he favors. He may choose the olive or the radish. He need not consider that the olive has a b’rochoh that is more specific than the radish.</i>
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  R' YIRMIYOH SAID [IT SHOULD] PRECEDE; R' YOSAIF SAID ETC. The Gemara cites an opinion that the dispute between R’ Yehudoh and the Rabanan is even when the b’rochos to be recited are the same. The Gemara asks: what can they be arguing about if the b’rochos are not the same. R’ Yirmiyoh answers: they argue about which of the two b’rochos are to be recited first. In our text of the Gemara that Tosfos is now quoting we read: as R’ Yosaif said. The implication of this text is that R’ Yosaif’s statement is following the opinion of R’ Yehudoh and that is why he holds that the order that must be followed is the order that the Torah teaches us of the seven species. The Rabanan however, do not subscribe to this opinion of R’ Yosaif and they hold that there is no need to follow the order of the seven species at all. Tosfos presents an alternative text, not דאמר רב יוסף rather רב יוסף אמר. According to this text Rav Yosaif is not linked to R’ Yehudoh, and his statement is true even according to the Rabanan. They also agree that we must take into account the order of the seven species in the Torah.Rashi and R’I explained that according to this text, דאמר רב יוסף this statement of Rav Yosaif that whatever is first in this verse takes precedence for reciting b’rochos, was said only according to R’ Yehudoh. The Rabanan do not agree at all that the order of the seven species has any significance in the matter of which b’rochoh is to be recited first.Tosfos introduces a dissenting opinion. However, Rabainu Sh’mayoh’s text is רב יוסף אמר וכו' without the 'ד that connects it to R’ Yirmiyoh’s statement. It is an independent statement by Rav Yosaif and it was said even according to the Rabanan, they too agree that the order of the seven species must be taken into account when determining which b’rochoh is to be recited first. And it is speaking of when one is not more of a favorite than the other, and then we must go according to that which is first in the verse. For if there is a favorite, it is certain that the favorite is first, For even when the choice is between other species as opposed to the seven species, the Rabanan say that one recites a b’rochoh on whatever fruit he wants, the favorite, certainly when the choice is between the seven species we should have to follow the favorite. And the statement of Rav Yosaif is an independent statement, not attached to R’ Yirmiyoh’s statement.Tosfos has a serious problem with Rabainu Sh’mayoh’s opinion that even the Rabanan agree that we must take into account the order of the seven species when that does not conflict with the favorite. And this is not clear, for it is soon evident that the proper text is דאמר רב יוסף and it was said only according to R’ Yehudoh and the Rabanan disagree. For Rav Chisdo and Rav Hamnuno were sitting at a meal, and they brought before them dates and pomegranates, Rav Hamnuno recited a b’rochoh on the dates first. Rav Chisdo said to him do you not hold of Rav Yosaif’s teaching that whatever is mentioned earlier in the verse takes precedence for a b’rochoh? This question about Rav Hamnuno’s choice makes sense if we hold that the consideration of that which is earlier in the verse takes precedence over all other considerations. Then it makes sense to ask, do you not hold of Rav Yosaif’s statement? But if Rav Yosaif’s statement is not absolute as Rabainu Sh’mayoh suggests and that when there is a favorite that overrides the order of the seven species in the Torah and one recites the b’rochoh on the favorite, why was Rav Hamnuno’s choice questioned at all? Perhaps he chose the favorite as he should and he agrees with Rav Yosaif when there is no favorite.
  
  Daf 41b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  THE HALAKHA IS: [FOOD ITEMS] THAT COME DUE TO THE MEAL. According to Rashi’s explanation Rav Popo is speaking about one time period, during the meal. And three types of food:a) מחמת הסעודה those foods generally eaten with bread and they do not require their own b’rochoh because we view the bread as the primary food and the meat, fish and vegetables as secondary to the bread. This follows the rule that when there is a primary and secondary food the b’rochoh is recited on the primary food.b)  שלא מחמת הסעודה  are such foods such as cereals, cabbage and beets that are not secondary to bread, but are eaten for the same purpose, to satiate. Since they are not secondary to bread they require a b’rochoh before eating them, but not afterward because they are covered by the b’rochoh of הזן that speaks of Hashem satiating us.c)  דברים הרגילים לבא לאחר הסעודה those foods usually eaten after the meal, such as fruits and the like, even when eaten during the meal they require a b’rochoh befor, becuae they are not secondary to the bread and after because they do not satiate and are not covered by the b’rochoh of הזן.Tosfos will now show us why he disagrees with Rashi and how he ultimately learns that there are two time periods discussed and two categories of food. Tosfos has two questions about Rashi’s explanation of category a). The first: Rashi explains that category a) is foods that are eaten together with bread, such as fish, meat or vegetables, and they do not require a b’rochoh because they are secondary to the bread that is primary. And this is unclear, for if so that Rav Popo is merely telling us that the b’rochoh for the primary food frees one from reciting a b’rochoh on the secondary food, that is a Mishna (44a), that one recites a b’rochoh on the primary and that exempts him from reciting a b’rochoh on the secondary, and what is he, Rav Popo, teaching us? There certainly is no need to repeat that which is clearly stated in a Mishna.Tosfos second question on Rashi’s explanation of category a): And there is another difficulty, which the Gemara will soon ask; that the b’rochoh for wine should also be covered by the b’rochoh on bread. And if Rashi is correct that the issue in category a) is about primary and secondary, what is the Gemara’s question? When one drinks wine even during a meal it is not as secondary to the bread, and we are discussing according to Rashi in category a) only such things which are secondary to bread. And one should not say that according to Rashi’s explanation when the Gemara asks that the b’rochoh for wine should be covered by bread it is speaking of when one soaks his bread in wine and in that case the wine is secondary to the bread, for we do not find that in such a case that one does in fact recite a b’rochoh on the wine. How can the Gemara ask a question based on a fact that is not known? Rather, certainly the Gemara’s question is about one who is drinking the wine and the wine is not secondary to the bread. We see that category a) is not speaking about primary and secondary.Tosfos now turns his critique to Rashi’s explanation of category b). And there is another difficulty with Rashi’s explanation of category which is foods that do not come on account of the meal during the meal and Rashi explained for example cereal, beets and cabbage that are not eaten together with bread, and their purpose is for nutrition and satiation. They require a b’rochoh before they are eaten, because they are not secondary to bread, however they are exempt from an after-b’rochoh by the birchas hamozon because they are species that satiate.And this is not clear, for we say in the Mishna (42a) if one recites a b’rochoh on bread he covers the parperes1<i class="footnote">See Mishna on 42a.</i> and the Gemara explain that the same is true for cereals. We see that cereals are covered by the b’rochoh for bread, which is a direct contradiction to Rashi’s explanation that cereals require their own b’rochoh when eaten during a meal.Tosfos objection to Rashi’s explanation of category c): And those foods that usually come after the meal, Rashi explained: such as fruit. And even when they are brought during the meal not as a secondary food to be eaten together with the bread, they require a b’rochoh both before they are eaten, because they are not secondary, and after they are eaten as well, because the birchas hamozon does not cover them, for they do not satiate and birchas hamozon only covers foods that satiate such as bread or cereals. This ruling is in accordance with Rav Shaishes, who said earlier: when they brought before him figs and pomegranates during the meal that a b’rochoh is required both before and after they are eaten. And that is not in accordance with the halochoh for we rule as Rav Nachmon and Rav Huno who disagree with Rav Shaishes as we explained earlier.After explaining his three reasons for disagreeing with Rashi’s explanation, Tosfos presents his own explanation. For these reasons the R’I explained that category a) which is foods that come on account of the meal during the meal, means as follows: they usually come on account of the meal with bread, for it is usual to eat them with bread. For example, meat, fish and all types of cooked dishes, and even when they were brought during the meal, they do not require a b’rochoh neither before nor after they are eaten, even when they are eaten in middle of the meal alone without bread. For since they come because of the bread, the bread covers them with its b’rochoh.Tosfos present his opinion for category b) which is the same as Rashi’s category c). However, foods that are usually not brought during the meal, such as dates, pomegranates and all other fruits that are not usually eaten together with bread, they require a b’rochoh before they are eaten, since they are not usually eaten together with bread, it, the bread does not cover them. And that is in accordance with Rav Nachmon and Rav Huno mentioned earlier who said that they, fruits in middle of the meal, require a b’rochoh before and not after they are eaten.According to Rashi, there is a third category of foods- those which are usually eaten after the meals, such as fruits which is Rashi’s category c) and Tosfos category b). Tosfos has no category c). Rather he explains that what Rashi perceives to be a third category of food, according to Tosfos emendation of the text is a second time period during which the foods of category a) and b) are eaten. 
  <i>In the standard print of our Gemara it appears that what follows is a separate Tosfos. Actually it is a continuation of the previous Tosfos.</i>Our text is “after the meal” and nothing more. And we do not have the text that Rashi has, those foods that come after the meal, in this conclusion of the Rav Popo’s statement. And the explanation is as follows: if they brought the foods that we mentioned, categories a) and b), after the meal, which means after they took away their hands from the bread,2<i class="footnote">During the times of the Mishna and Gemara after eating the main courses that were eaten with bread, desserts would be served, At that time one usually did not eat bread. It is this period that is referred to as taking away one’s hands from bread.</i> then the bread no longer covers them at all, and it is as if they are ate them without any meal and both foods that usually come on account of the meal, Tosfos category a), and foods that are not usually brought on account of the meal, Tosfos category b), require a b’rochoh before and after they are eaten. For when the Gemara discusses foods that are eaten in a different time period, namely after the meal, it refers to all categories of food mentioned earlier. When speaking of foods eaten during the meal, the Rav Popo spoke of categories a) and b), so too, when he speaks of a second time period, after the meal, he is referring to both categories of food and is telling us that both categories require a b’rochoh before and after they are eaten. And nowadays we do not have this last ruling, concerning the time period after the meal, for it is not our custom to take away our hands from the bread at all until after birchas hamozon. Rather, at all times that we continue to eat fruits or anything else before birchas hamozon it is our intention to eat the bread at all times. And we rule as Rav Popo does.
  
  Line 8
  
  IF SO, BREAD SHOULD ALSO EXEMPT WINE. The Gemara had mused that according to Ben Zoma’s reasoning that foods served as part of the course of the meal are absolved of a blessing by the blessing made on the bread, let wine, too, be absolved.  For certainly the wine was served only because of the meal for he drink’s numerous times – for would it not that he had the meal he would not drink – then let the bread absolve the wine of a blessing and the Gemara had answered; wine is different because it causes its own blessing.Rashi explains that since on many occasions wine is served not out of a necessity to drink (i.e. thirst) but out of formality such as kiddush or a wedding ceremony. But Rashba explains differently: that since wine is unique in that it requires the special blessing of  בורא פרי הגפן, while in its initial state of grapes it was בורא פרי העץ as opposed to other beverages which are  שהכל. Meaning that it is because of this uniqueness that bread will not absolve it. However, Rabbeinu Tam says that other beverages such as water are absolved of a blessing by bread for wine itself would be absolved were it not for the special status wine has that it ‘causes its own blessing’. This is contrary to the ruling by the Machzor Vitri who writes that a blessing is made on water each time it is drunk even in the course of a meal for it is considered each drink as a new entity – as if he left and returned for a new drink and the only reason the Gemara mused regarding wine that ‘let bread absolve it from a blessing’ (and not water) is because wine satiates but water does not satiate meaning that wine is worthy of consideration to be absolved by the bread since it has similar characteristics as bread in that it is satiating as is evident from the Braissa brought earlier “one who restricts himself with a vow from any food that satiates is nevertheless permitted to drink water or eat salt…” But undoubtedly it water is not absolved from a blessing by the bread for it does not come under the category of the bread blessing it does not satiate like bread.However R”I and Rabbeinu Tam would say not to bless at all on beverages served during the course of the meal, the reason being that bread absolves anything served as a result of itself. Now wine absolves all beverages for it wine is the optimum beverage so it is the primary drink and all others are secondary to it regarding blessings. Therefore, beverages served because of bread for soaking purposes (soaking refers to those sips we take with food for moisture rather than as a full drink we take for thirst quenching) and consider too that there is no eating without drinking. So drinking in general comes as a direct result of eating. Therefore bread absolves all drink with the exception of wine for the reason stated here in the Gemara.It is because of this reasoning that it is understandable why on Pesach we bless on lettuce only על אכילת מרור – for this has been perplexing to the world: Why not also the blessing of בורא פרי האדמה?- and the  בורא פרי האדמה which was blessed on the other vegetables (by Karpas) is useless by the מרור for as is stated there, ‘since there is discussion of the Jewish exodus from Egypt at the seder and Hallel recitations’ a significant interruption between the blessing on Karpas and the Marror.So surely the reason we don’t bless בורא פרי האדמה on the Marror is that since the Torah instituted this requirement of eating Marror, as it is written ‘on matzos and merrorim shall you eat it’ then the Marror is considered foods which are served as part of the course of the meal and the bread absolves it.
  
  Daf 42a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  WAFERS. Rav Yehuda had said in the name of Shmuel that Lachmaniyos are worthy of use for Eruv and a blessing of Hamotzi is made on them if one established his meal on them. Rashi defined Lachmanios as avlayiush referred to as ‘iron crackers’ that is: dough baked between two hot iron plates. This does not seem to be the proper definition for if so a blessing of המוציא would be required even if one were not to establish his meal on them for it is pure bread because in its final state it is dough. Rather, it seems that they are nilush: a pretzel that if a meal were to be established on them they require a המוציא blessing as on Purim However Rabbi Shimshon explained that a המוציא is not to be blessed on them for they are like cereal.
  
  Line 5
  
  IT IS STATED: REMOVED. It is only forbidden to continue eating once the table has been removed. It seems that it was their custom to remove the table before ברכת המזון. This presents a difficulty on our own custom which is to specifically not remove the bread before the ברכת המזון.Answer: Perhaps in those days they would remove the table only from the other participants but not from before the one reciting the benediction for they had small tables and each one ate at his individual table. But, we who customarily eat only at one table, it would be inappropriate to remove the table until after ברכת המזון.
  
  Line 6
  
  R' ZEIRA. R’ Zeira refused to partake of a stew once the table had been removed. It is a wonder according to those who maintain that once it has been declared “Let us recite the  ברכת המזון” it is forbidden to drink without a blessing, why did R’ Zeira not partake of the stew? Let him bless on it and eat!Answer: Perhaps this stew contained in it bread which would require washing anew and reciting המוציא and doing so would be too much bother.
  [WE ARE] DEPENDENT UPON THE TABLE OF THE EXILARCH. One who forgot to eat אפיקומן  at the Pesach seder and announced “Let us recite ברכת המזון!” it is not a mental lapse that is he may still partake of the אפיקומן for we rely on the ‘table of G-d’ that is: just as the participants of the Raish Galussa’s feast relied on the ריש גלותא’s table so too on the seder night we rely on the program that G-d has outlined for us which includes the eating of the אפיקומן. Therefore the announcement of ‘let us recite  ברכת המזון was merely an error And if he forgot to eat אפיקומן and recited the ברכת המזון, he need not return and eat it for all the Matzos are made for the sake of Mitzvoh.And this that was said that the announcement of “let us recite ברכת המזון” forbids any further drinking – including all members of the feast, is only true when it was the host who made the announcement but if a guest announced it, he himself the guest may return and complete his meal together with the host.
  [WE ARE] DEPENDENT UPON THE TABLE OF THE EXILARCH. And if it is customary to eat various fruits and they were served one after the other, there are those who say that a blessing must be recited on each one for they do not know if the host will serve them more. But it seems that no blessing is needed, for we rely on the hosts table and this is what is meant by the case brought in our Gemara of the ריש גלותא.
  
  Daf 42b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  ALTHOUGH THEY ONLY BRING THE INCENSE AFTER THE MEAL. It seems that the Halacha goes according to the students of Rav for Rav Shaishes rules like them and the rule is the Halacha is like R’ Nachman in monetary issues and like R’ Shaishes in prohibitive law. And even though it was established that in disputes between Rav and Shmuel we rule like Rav in Prohibitive Law, this case is exceptional because all of Rav’s students dispute his ruling (as stated here), probably because they learned it this way from him. However this ruling doesn’t apply to us anyhow, for we do not remove our hand from the bread.Regarding the question of whether wine served in middle of the meal absolves wine served after the meal: It seems that the wine from before the meal absolves wine served in the course of the meal - even though we rule here that wine of the middle does not absolve wine served after the meal. This is different because this the middle of the meal is for soaking that is: it is a different nature of drinking and this after the meal is for drinking. But wine of drinking certainly absolves wine of soaking for instance wine served at the onset (drinking) would absolve wine served in middle (soaking).This that our Gemara refers to Sabbath and Holidays wasn’t meant exclusively (Sabbath and Holidays) for even if one would happen to establish a feast with wine during the weekdays, and one were to bring wine to be served in middle of the meal, there too the wine of before would certainly absolve the wine of the middle since it was his intention to drink wine in the course of the meal. And so too, wine of kiddush absolves wine served in the course of the meal and havdalah as well, if one brought wine to the table, it would absolve any wine drunk throughout the course of a meal afterward.And ‘Sabbath and Holidays’ mentioned, was not meant exclusively (Sabbath and Holidays) only it was intended to exclude cases where the notion of additional wine was abandoned (once it was abandoned and then revisited, then a new blessing is required). And even if you would argue that it was meant exclusively on Sabbath and Holidays, nevertheless it must be said that it is regarding wine served in middle of a meal that absolves wine served after the meal - that is after they had already removed their hands from the bread (they finished eating) because it is usual to establish a serving of wine after the completion of a meal regularly only on Sabbath or Holiday but not other days.But in terms of absolving wine that is served in middle of a meal which is customary on all days, certainly the wine served at the onset of the meal absolves it on all days – even though one is for drinking and one is for soaking. For the Gemara’s concern was only whether wine for soaking which is not distinguished can absolve wine for drinking which is distinguished but wine for drinking which is more distinguished which is served at the onset of the meal undoubtedly absolves wine for soaking.And this is also indicated in Arvei Pesachim when discussing kiddush made in the Bais Haknesses where R’ Yochanan states that even the obligation of blessing the wine was fulfilled [by the congregation merely by hearing the kiddush recited by the chazzan] and they do not have to repeat the blessing at home in middle of the meal even though the kiddush they heard was not made at the location of the feasting still, R’ Yochanan maintains that since the kiddush obligation was fulfilled, then the wine obligation was also fulfilled.And although R’ Yochanan’s statement was refuted there, that was only an issue of change of venue (the refutation) and as such it would seem that the ruling would be no different by havdallahfor no difference exists between havdalah and Kiddush. Now this is contrary to those who dispute and say that it is exclusively by kiddush that wine in middle of the meal is absolved, because the rule is that kiddush may be made only at the venue of the feast, but wine of havdallah does not absolve even if havdallah was made after washing for meal. For here it is the same discussion where we rule that wine of the onset of the meal absolves wine of the middle also where he has washed to eat.
  
  Daf 43a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  EVERY ONE WASHES ONE HAND. The Braiso says that as the group gathers before the meal, and they are served a cup of wine, each guest washes one hand and recites a b’rochoh on the wine. The reason for washing at this point is not mentioned in the Braiso. There are three different opinions mentioned in three Tosfos throughout shas about this. Here Tosfos offers the following reason: The reason one must wash is because of the honor of the b’rochoh. And this is not similar to one who washes for fruit, who is considered arrogant, because he washes when the Rabanan did not require him to do so, since he does not wash both hands. He is showing that this hand washing is not to fulfill an obligation. If, in his mind it was a required hand washing he would wash both hands, by washing only one hand he is sending a clear message that this is not a required washing.1<i class="footnote">Tosfos in פסחים 115a says that the washing is in fact required so that the wine should not become טמא. In חגיגה 18b, Tosfos says that the hand washing here is for hygienic reasons.</i>
  IF WINE CAME BEFORE THEM. After the guests moved to the dining room, they washed both hands. The Braiso says that if wine was then brought before them, one would recite a b’rochoh for all. Why did they have to recite a b’rochoh at all? They had already each recited a b’rochoh earlier. Even though, wine that one drinks before the meal covers the b’rochoh for wine that is drunk after the meal, and by a kal v’chomer it should certainly cover this cup of wine which is also drunk before the meal, so why is another b’rochoh required at all?Tosfos answers: This case is different, since they went into the dining room from the antechamber to recline, which is a change of place1<i class="footnote">See פסחים 101b for an in depth discussion of the rules of changing one’s place in regards to the laws of B’rochos.</i> and that change of place necessitates a new b’rochoh.
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  BECAUSE [WHILE EATING], THE THROAT IS NOT AVAILABLE. When Ben Zomo was asked why when wine is brought during the meal each guest must recite their own b’rochoh, he responded because they are in the process of swallowing their food. Rashi says that they cannot pay proper attention to the one reciting the b’rochoh since they are preoccupied with eating their food. According to Rashi’s explanation, one can make an argument that if the one who intends to recite the b’rochoh informs the other guests that he is about to recite the b’rochoh this would be acceptable, because they would then know to immediately swallow their food and pay attention to the b’rochoh. And there are those who say that when the one who is reciting the b’rochoh says “please pay attention, my masters”, and they refrain from eating in order to listen to the b’rochoh and answer אמן, that they are exempt from reciting a b’rochoh. They have fulfilled their obligation by listening to the b’rochoh that was recited.And so it would appear from the Yerushalmee1<i class="footnote">The Yerushalmee is not nearly as clear as it would seem from Tosfos. In fact most Rishonim do not quote this Yerushalmee at all. See Rosh who quotes the Yerushalmee as saying that the reason one cannot fulfill his obligation by listening is because he is in the process of swallowing and it is dangerous to answer אמן when there is food in one’s mouth. The Yerushalmee that Tosfos is quoting was not said about Ben Zomo’s Braiso at all. It is stated immediately after the Mishna and at first glance it does not seem to be discussing our issue at all. See the Pairush of the בעל החרדיםwho shows how Tosfos understood this Yerushalmee.</i> that comments about the Braiso, this has been said that each and every guest must recite a b’rochoh, when it is one of the guests who wants to recite a b’rochoh for all of them, but if it is the master of the house who recites the b’rochoh for all, they are exempt from reciting a b’rochoh for themselves, because they all pay attention to the master of the house when he is the one who recites the b’rochoh for all. R’ Cheeyoh says that even when the master of the house is at home and he recites the b’rochoh the others have not fulfilled their obligation. R” Cheeyoh disagrees with those who would say that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh, the guests have fulfilled their obligation. So too, he would disagree with the ruling that if one called the attention of the listeners they would fulfill their obligation, but the majority opinion seems to hold that when the master of the house recites the b’rochoh all the listeners need not recite their own b’rochoh.Tosfos tells us that not all agree with those who rule that if one calls the attention of the listeners, they are exempt from reciting their own b’rochoh. And this ruling that if the one who recites the b’rochoh, calls the attention of the listeners’ one can recite the b’rochoh for all does not appear correct to Rabainu Elchonon,2<i class="footnote">Notice that Rabainu Elchonon does not mention how he deals with the Yerushalmee quoted to support the previous opinion. See note 1 and we can understand why Rabainu Elchonon did not consider this a problem at all.</i> for once the Rabanan instituted that each one should recite the b’rochoh himself, he cannot fulfill his obligation at all with his associate’s b’rochoh. And also, it does not make sense to differentiate between when one is free and when one is not free to listen to the b’rochoh, for if one begins to differentiate between each and every case it is likely that he will come to err in judgment. It therefore makes more sense to say that the Rabanan established the rule that during the meal one cannot fulfill his obligation to recite a b’rochoh by listening to his associate and they did not allow for any differentiation.Tosfos now turns his attention to another b’rochoh that is sometimes recited when drinking wine. When one brings a second variety of  wine to the table, one need not recite a בורא פרי הגפן a second time, but he does need to say the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב, expressing his thanks to Hashem who is good to him and good to others. And as far as the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב is concerned, there are those who say that when one recites the b’rochoh all agree that others who are listening are exempt from reciting the b’rochoh themselves. For the very b’rochoh means that Hashem was good to him, the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, and is good to others who are also drinking of this wine. The b’rochoh specifically speaks of at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence and should therefore be recited for at least two people. Since this b’rochoh requires two people, even when said during the meal the listeners’ fulfill their obligation by listening.Rabainu Yechiel disagrees with this ruling for two reasons. The first: And Rabainu Yechiel said that it is not correct to say that the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב can be said by one in order to exempt others during the meal for the issue that the throat is not empty is also relevant for הטוב והמטיב. The reason for the b’rochoh does not change the physical reality that one is in the midst of swallowing during the meal and cannot properly concentrate on listening to the b’rochoh.3<i class="footnote">Rabainu Yechiel’s argument seems to be very strong. Perhaps the first opinion holds that the reason of the Gemara that the throat is not clear and one cannot concentrate properly is not an absolute statement that one can never concentrate with food in his mouth. Rather, it means that when there is food in one’s mouth, it could create a conflict with his ability to concentrate and therefore since there is always the option of having each guest recite their own b’rochoh, the Rabanan chose that option. However, when there is no option such as with the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב where according to this opinion it is absolutely necessary that one recites the b’rochoh for another person who is also benefiting from this kindness of Hashem, we can assume that all will concentrate properly despite the food they have in their mouths.</i>The second reason Rabainu Yechiel disagree with the ruling differentiating between בורא פרי הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. And he does not differentiate between הטוב and the b’rochoh on wine. For because of that reason that the b’rochoh needs to be said for two people because of its text that Hashem is good to him and is good to others, which implies that the b’rochoh must be said for at least two recipients of Hashem’s beneficence, that does not necessarily means that he must exempt others with the recital of the b’rochoh. For we see that, the b’rochoh, Hashem is good to others is relevant and can be said even when those others are not present as we say later in perek HoRo’eh (59b), where the Gemara says: if they said to him, your wife gave birth to a male, he says הטוב והמטיב ברוך, thanking Hashem who has been good to him, the father, and good to his wife even though his wife is not present4<i class="footnote">Tosfos is proving that it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient of Hashem’s kindness to be present when the b’rochoh הטוב והמטיב is recited. Perhaps the first opinion holds that although it is not absolutely necessary for the second recipient to be present and to fulfill his or her obligation at the same time as the one who is reciting the b’rochoh, it is still preferred that the b’rochoh be recited in the presence of the second recipient and that he be fulfilling his obligation together with the first recipient. That is why the Rabanan allowed the  b’rochoh to be recited by one for the other even during the meal. See note 3.</i> when the b’rochoh is recited. We see that the b’rochoh needs to be said when there are two recipients of Hashem’s kindness, but it need not be said in the presence of both recipients. So too, when one recites the b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב on wine, there need not be a second recipient who is fulfilling his obligation of reciting the b’rochoh while it is being recited. As long as there is a second recipient of Hashem’s goodness the b’rochoh can be recited even in his absence, when he certainly would not be fulfilling his obligation to recite the b’rochoh.Tosfos now addresses another issue; the custom of standing during Havdoloh when the one who recites the b’rochos is exempting the others who are listening. However, the issue of Havdoloh requires some contemplation, for we do not sit or recline to establish ourselves as a group, as the Mishna and Gemara have required for meals. And perhaps it can be said that since they establish themselves to be a group for fulfilling the Havdoloh obligation, they are established as a group for the entire matter, the b’rochos on wine and havdoloh.5<i class="footnote">This is a bit puzzling. Tosfos explained the reason why the custom of standing for Havdoloh is acceptable and then concludes that it is therefore better not to stand. Perhaps Tosfos means that although we can defend the custom, it is not an answer that one would initially want to rely on and it is therefore better to sit.</i> And for this reason, it is fine and good for the one reciting havdoloh and the listeners that they should sit during havdoloh, for the it appears as an established group and the one who recites exempts them from their obligation to recite havdoloh, because they are fulfilling their obligation by listening to the one who recites havdoloh.
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  OVER ALL THE INCENSE ONE RECITES: WHO CREATES FRAGRANT TREES. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara had to teach us that one recites the b’rochoh בורא עצי בשמים on all incense. The incense is in fact woods of בשמים, that is the proper b’rochoh to be recited. Even though the incense is burned when one enjoys the fragrance and the woods of the בשמים are no longer intact when we benefit from them, we must still recite בורא עצי בשמים.
  
  Daf 43b
  
  
  
  Daf 44a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  HE RECITES A BLESSING OVER THE SALTED [FOOD]. Essentially, the reason for this halochoh is because the b’rochoh on the primary food covers the secondary food. That principle has already been taught by the Mishna. Why does it have to be repeated here? And even though we have already been taught that the b’rochoh on bread frees one from the b’rochoh on parperes1<i class="footnote">For a proper definition of parperes, see Mishna on 42a, and Tosfos ברך ה'ד.</i> that is eaten with bread, so we have already learned the principle that the b’rochoh on a primary food frees one from reciting a b’rochoh on the secondary food, even so, it is necessary for the Mishna to teach us that sometimes the bread, which is almost always a primary food, can be a secondary food. One might think that the inherent importance of bread might prevent it from ever being designated as secondary, the Mishna had to teach us that this is not so.
  
  Line 2
  
  [THIS] WAS TAUGHT [IN REGARD TO] THOSE WHO EAT FRUITS OF GENOSAR. Ordinarily salted fish is considered secondary to bread, and a b’rochoh is recited on the bread and the salted fish is exempt from a b’rochoh. The Gemara is searching for a practical situation where the reverse would be true. The salted fish would be the primary food and the bread secondary to it. The Gemara answers that we are speaking of people who ate fruit from the area of the Kineret. The fruit that grows there is extremely sweet and after partaking of the fruit, sometimes one need a salty food to counteract the sweetness of the fruit. At such times it is the salted fish that is the primary food and the bread is secondary. Why aren’t the fruits considered the primary food? Seemingly the b’rochoh should be recited on the fruits. For in this situation the salted fish is the primary food. For it comes to restore strength to the heart, that has been weakened because of the sweetness of the fruit. And the bread that comes after it, the salted fish, is secondary and it only comes on account of the salted fish. Therefore, the b’rochoh is recited on the salted fish and that b’rochoh covers the bread that is secondary.But isn’t the fruit actually the primary food? And if you ask: the fruit are the primary food and the salted fish is secondary to the fruit, so he should recite the b’rochoh on the fruit an cover all of them, the salted fish and the bread, with the b’rochoh on the fruit.Tosfos has two answers to this question. The first: And we can answer: that is speaking of when he did not eat the fruits at that occasion. He first ate the fruit and then later decided to eat the salted fish.A second answer to Tosfos question that the b’rochoh should be recited on the fruit: Alternatively, at the time he ate the fruit of Ginoser, the salted fish and the bread were not yet there, because he did not know that his heart would be weakened because of the sweetness. The b’rochoh on the fruit which was recited before the salted fish and bread were brought to the scene cannot cover the b’rochoh for the salted fish. Thus he must recite a b’rochoh for the salted fish which at that time is the primary food and that frees him from a b’rochoh on the bread.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  FOR THE TREE AND THE FRUIT OF THE TREE. Our Gemara mentions two versions of this b’rochoh,  על המחיה and על העץ. Tosfos informs us of a third version of this b’rochoh. See Rosh Chapter 42, who seems to have had a text of the Gemara, that includes what Tosfos is about to say. But upon wine, we recite על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן. Since wine has a unique b’rochoh for itself because of the special fondness for wine before one drinks wine, the same is true for the after-b’rochoh and it has its own unique after-b’rochoh על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן.Tosfos established that at the beginning of the after-b’rochoh we insert a special sentence about wine. What about the conclusion of the after-b’rochoh? And at the conclusion of the after-b’rochoh there are those who conclude with “upon the land and upon the fruits” even after drinking wine, and there are those who conclude “upon the vine and the fruit of the vine”. However, it appears that there is no need to change the conclusion, from “on the fruits” to on “the fruit of the vine”. For we only change the text at the beginning of the after- b’rochoh to say “fruit of the vine” in place of “fruit of the tree”, but elsewhere, at the conclusion of the b’rochoh, when we do not mention in the text of the b’rochoh “on the tree” but rather without any specification we say “on the land and on the fruits”, for wine as well it is not necessary to change the text to “on the land and on the fruit of the vine”. It is sufficient to say “on the land and on the fruits”. It is only when specifying the tree, that it is necessary to replace the non-specific “tree” with the specific “vine”.Tosfos now discusses another question about the b’rochoh that is an abridgement of three. The Rambam says that on Shabos and Yom Tov we mention the special day in the text of על המחיה etc. Tosfos searches for a source for the Rambam’s ruling. And in the book of Maimonidies, he requires that one must mention something about the happening on Shabos and Yom Tov. And so too, it appears from the Yerushalmee that it is necessary to mention Shabos and Yom Tov. However, the community has not adopted that custom. Why not? And it may be that what they required that the happening be mentioned in the b’rochoh, that was exclusively in their days when it was usual for them to have a customary gathering for drinking wine and eating various fruits, but nowadays when we have no such regular gatherings and it is not necessary to mention Shabos or Yom Tov in this b’rochoh. The requirement of mentioning Shabos and Yom Tov in the b’rochoh was because the b’rochoh was commonly recited at a regular gathering, it is not the b’rochoh itself that requires mentioning the special day, it is where and when the b’rochoh is said.And Rabainu Chananel said, that when one eats a type of מזונות such as cereal, together with figs and he drinks wine at the same time, he says in his after-b’rochoh, ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם על הכלכלה ועל המחיה, for the cereal, and על הגפן ועל פרי הגפן, for the wine, and על העץ ועל פרי העץ, for the figs, and he continues with ועל תנובת השדה etc. He must mention all three versions of the b’rochoh at the beginning of the after-b’rochoh. And he concludes with ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם על הארץ ועל המחיה ועל הפירות . As we have seen before, Tosfos holds that even when reciting the b’rochoh for wine, one concludes with על הארץ ועל הפירות. And this is not concluding a b’rochoh with two distinct praises of Hashem, which is unacceptable, because the b’rochoh is on the land, which is one reason for praising Hashem, and that land brings forth two types of food that which sustains life and fruits. The conclusion of the b’rochoh thanks Hashem for giving us the land. The land feeds us with many different types of food. 
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  THEY EAT AND WE RECITE A BLESSING?  The Gemara told us that at the conclusion of the b’rochoh for fruits of the seven species, Rav Chisdo says “on the land and her fruits” and Rav Yochonon said “on the land and on the fruits” not specifically mentioning her fruits. The land refers to Eretz Yisroel. The Gemara comments that there is no dispute here between Rav Chisdo and Rav Yochonon. In Eretz Yisroel we say on the land and her fruits, referring specifically to the fruits of Eretz Yisroel that were eaten and outside of Eretz Yisroel we say “on the land and on the fruits” and we do not mention her fruits, because we have not eaten of the actual fruits of Eretz Yisroel. Rav Chisdo was Babylonian and R’ Yochonon lived in Eretz Yisroel. It seems strange that R’ Yochonon speaks of the proper text for Babylonians and Rav Chisdo mentions the text for Eretz Yisroel. The Gemara asks this question and reverses the opinions. Rav Chisdo of Babylonia, said “on the land and on the fruits” while R’ Yochonon of Eretz Yisroel said “on the land and on her fruits”.Tosfos analyzes the Gemara’s question that forced a reversal of the opinions. It appears that it does not make sense to the one who is asking the question that the amoroim of Babylonia, Rav Chisdo, would be addressing the people of Eretz Yisroel when he says that the correct text of the b’rochoh is “on the land and on her fruits”.Tosfos tells us the difficulty that he has with the Gemara’s question. For Rabainu Tam did in fact explain the Gemara (Kidushin 29b) that says, one should always marry a woman first and then learn Torah and in another Braiso we learned, he should learn Torah and afterwards marry a woman. To resolve the contradiction the Gemara there concludes, one ruling is for us in Eretz Yisroel and one ruling is for them in Babylonia. And Rabainu Tam explained that R’ Yochonon was addressing his students from Babylonia, even though he was in Eretz Yisroel. We see from Rabainu Tam that it is reasonable to say that R’ Yochonon of Eretz Yisroel was speaking specifically to his students from Babylonia. If so, why does the Gemara here ask, they are eating the fruits of Eretz Yisroel and we in Babylonia are reciting the b’rochoh for its fruits as Rav Chisdo said. Perhaps at the time Rav Chisdo stated his ruling he was speaking to his students from Eretz Yisroel and there is no need to reverse the opinions?In order to resolve this difficulty, Tosfos suggests that perhaps the Gemara was totally aware of whom Rav Chisdo was addressing. For perhaps, here it was known to the questioner that at the time that Rav Chisdo made this statement, that the correct text is “on the land and on her fruits”, there wasn’t any student from Eretz Yisroel before him. And so too, there was no disciple from Babylonia in front of R’ Yochonon when he said that the correct text is “on the land and on the fruits”. And if that is so, Rav Chisdo who was from Babylonia would only mention that which is relevant to the people of Babylonia. And because the Gemara was aware of these circumstances it asked, how the people of Babylonia can recite in their b’rochoh “on the land and on her fruits” which appears to refer exclusively to the fruits of Eretz Yisroel, and they in Babylonia are not eating those fruits. The Gemara concludes that it is necessary to reverse the opinions, because of the specific information that the questioner had at that point in time.
  
  Daf 44b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  I ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THEM. Rav Ashee said that I follow all the opinions mentioned about the after-b’rochoh בורא נפשות and I recite it even after drinking water. And this is our custom, as Rav Ashee says that we recite after water and after vegetables בורא נפשות.
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  AND FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE WEST THAT BLESS AFTERWORDS ETC. The Gemara was wondering about the situation that we say only a first b’rochoh and not an after-b’rochoh. The Gemara suggested that this refers to Mitzvos, upon which we recite a first b’rochoh and not an after-b’rochoh. The Gemara then asked, that is correct for those of us in Babylonia who do not recite a b’rochoh when removing t’filin, but what about the people of Eretz Yisroel who do recite a b’rochoh when removing t’filin. How do they resolve the Mishna in Needoh that says there are situations where we recite a first b’rochoh and not an after-b’rochoh? It is evident that we in Babylonia do not recite the b’rochoh for removing t’filin. Tosfos will explain why.We must first acquaint ourselves with a Gemara in Maseches Airuvin (96a) that discusses the verse ושמרת את החקה הזאת למעודה מימים ימימה, “you shall observe this decree at its designated time from year to year”. The literal translation of מימים ימימה is from day to day. R’ Yosee HaGalilee says that this verse is teaching us that one may wear t’filin only during the day and not at night. Nor may they be worn on Shabos and Yom Tov. R’ Akeevo says that the verse is teaching us that we must observe the mitzvoh of the pesach sacrifice from year to year. According to R’ Akeevo the verse is totally unrelated to the mitzvoh of t’filin. Tosfos will explain that the people of the west1<i class="footnote">Eretz Yisroel is west of Babylonian, thus to the people of Babylonia the people of the west are the people of Eretz Yisroel.</i> hold like R’ Yosse HaGalilee, that the verse is discussing the prohibition of t’filin at night. We, the Babylonians hold like R’Akeevo that the verse is discussing the pesach sacrifice and is unrelated to t’filin. And we do not do as the people of the west1<i class="footnote">Eretz Yisroel is west of Babylonian, thus to the people of Babylonia the people of the west are the people of Eretz Yisroel.</i> for only they who usually removed their t’filin at night the b’rochoh of “observe his decrees” is relevant as it is written (Sh’mos 13, 10) “and you shall observe this decree in its time from day to day”. According to the people of Eretz Yisroel, this refers to removing the t’filin at night. But we who remove our t’filin in middle of the day or even if we would remove them at night it has no relevance to the “decree” to which the verse is referring. And only for them, the people of the west, who hold that nighttime is not the time for t’filin and the words “from day to day”, come to exclude nighttime is the b’rochoh of “to observe his decrees” relevant.But we who hold that nighttime is a time for t’filin and we say that the verse “and you shall guard the statute etc.” is speaking of the pesach sacrifice. And that which we do not put on t’filin at night is because one might pass air while wearing them, even if we would wait till at night to remove the t’filin we would not recite the b’rochoh “to observe his decree”. It is only when t’filin are removed because of what is derived from this verse that one recites a b’rochoh based on that verse as he removes the t’filin, if the reason we remove the t’filin at night has nothing to do with that verse, it is merely for the fear that one may pass air, the b’rochoh which is based on that verse is not recited.But there are times when we also do not wear t’filin, that are based on biblical sources. Should we perhaps recite the b’rochoh then? Even though we rule that Shabos and Yom Tov are not times for wearing t’filin by Torah law, even so we do not recite the b’rochoh. For it is only for them, the people of the west, that they hold that “decree” of that verse refers to t’filin, is that b’rochoh recited. The b’rochoh, based on that verse is recited only for t’filin that is removed because of what is taught in that verse. That we happen to hold that t’filin are not worn on Shabos and Yom Tov, that is derived from another source does not obligate us to recite the b’rochoh that is based on this verse.Tosfos offers proof that this b’rochoh is related to this verse only and only that which is derived from this verse requires the recital of the b’rochoh “to observe his decrees”. And I will prove it. For they, the people of the west, only recite this b’rochoh on the removal of t’filin because the word חקה is written in that verse. It is only in reference to that חקה of t’filin that the b’rochoh is recited, but on other mitzvos such as tzitzis, lulov and sukoh they do not recite this b’rochoh. It is clear that the b’rochoh is recited only for what is derived from that verse.This last fact, that even the people of the west only recite this b’rochoh upon the removal of t’filin and not at the conclusion of other mitzvos creates a difficulty: And this is difficult, for the Gemara could have answered this,2<i class="footnote">Tosfos in Maseches Needoh 51a says And our Gemara could have said that the Mishna in Needoh is referring to tzitzis, upon which the b’rochoh of “observing his decrees” is not recited even by the people of Eretz Yisroel, but he would rather mention “aroma” because it is clear that on all fragrances are equal. One does not recite a b’rochoh after he benefits from the aroma. Whereas for Mitzvos sometimes one does recite a b’rochoh after the performance of a mitzvoh, such as when removing t’filin and for other mitzvos one does not recite that b’rochoh.</i> that the Mishna in Needoh that says there are times when a first b’rochoh is recited and not an after-b’rochoh excludes other mitzvos, such as tzitzis, lulov and sukoh, even according to the people of the west.
  
  Daf 45a
  
  
  
  Daf 45b
  
  
  
  Daf 46a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  UNTIL WHERE [DOES] THE ZIMMUN BLESSING [EXTEND]? Tosfos will cite Rashi’s explanation, the difficulties that he has with Rashi and his own explanation. Rashi says that one who is intending to continue eating after the zimun waits till הזן. And the b’rochoh of הזן is also included in the statement that when there are only two they do not recite the b’rochoh of הזן. Since we say that the b’rochoh of הזן is part of the zimun and we also say that two do not partake in zimun, then the b’rochoh of הזן that is part of the birchas hazimun should not be recited when there are only two who have eaten.The first of Tosfos objections to Rashi’s explanation:And this is not clear, for the b’rochoh of הזן is required by Torah law, and how can an individual who is not part of a zimun be exempt from reciting it.Tosfos second objection:And furthermore, we rule like Rav Shaishes in matters that pertain to prohibitions, as opposed to financial matters, so in this matter we should rule in accordance with Rav Shaishes since this issue is not financial, and according to him an individual only recites two of the biblical b’rochos, נודה and רחם. And in all places when the birchas hamozon is discussed, it is referred to as three b’rochos. If an individual only recites two b’rochos, why should the birchas hamozon   be called three b’rochos? And it is awkward to say that according to Rav Shaihes, the term three b’rochos as a description of birchas hamozon is used only when there is a zimun, who according to Rashi holds that an individual does not recite הזן.The third objection:And furthermore, it is a daily occurrence that individuals who are reciting birchas hamozon do recite three b’rochos. And according to Rashi this is against the halochoh, which should follow Rav Shaishes who says that an individual does not say הזן.A fourth objection:And furthermore, from that which we learned in a Braiso later in our perek (48b), the Braiso is discussing how each b’rochoh is derived from the verse and says: וברכת, refers to the birchas hazimun, that begins with נברך. The verse continues את ה' אלקיך, that is the b’rochoh of הזן. And this is difficult according to Rav Shaishes who says that הזן is part of the birchas hazimun. If the b’rochoh of הזן is part of the birchas hazimun, why does the Braiso refer to it as something else?Tosfos now presents his explanation of the dispute between Rav Nachmon and Rav Shaishes. Therefore we should explain that the dispute between Rav Nachmon and Rav Shaishes about what is included in the zimun refers to the ruling mentioned earlier that when two of the three are ready to recite birchas hamozon, the individual interrupts his meal and answers the leader who says נברך. And the Gemara asks: how long does the individual have to wait while the others recite their b’rochoh until he can resume his eating. The first opinion is until and including נברך. As soon as they have completed נברך, the individual may resume eating. And Rav Shaishes says, the individual must wait until they complete הזן, and from there and beyond the individual may return to his eating.Now that Tosfos has explained what the point of disagreement is, he wants to point out that although Rav Shaishes holds that the individual must wait till the two finish הזן it is not because הזן is part of the birchas hazimun. And the reason the individual must wait till the two have completed הזן is not because the b’rochoh of הזן is considered part of the zimun. For certainly an individual is also obligated to recite הזן, rather, it is because נברך is not an actual b’rochoh, one should not say it alone unconnected to anything else, but he should complete together with נברך, also the b’rochoh of הזן which is a complete b’rochoh. And now it makes sense that we correctly rule in accordance with Rav Shaishes. And a similar explanation is to be found in Yerushalmee.In light of the difference between Rashi and Tosfos in the previous Tosfos, there will be a major difference in the interpretation of the Braisos that speak of “two and three” or “three and four”. And Rashi explained that the words in the Braiso two and three refer to the number of b’rochos recited, two, when an individual recites birchas hamozon, and three, when it is recited by a zimun. And he explained it this way following in his previously stated position and that is extremely awkward as was explained in the previous Tosfos. Can it be that an individual is not required to recite הזן? And furthermore since the words two and three are referring to the number of b’rochos recited, and in Hebrew the word b’rochoh is feminine, why does the Braiso use the masculine שנים ושלושה? He should have used the feminine שתים ושלוש. Since the Braiso employs the masculine שנים ושלושה  for the words two and three, it must be referring to men, as Tosfos will now explain.The explanation of Rav Alfas takes into account the male gender used for the numbers. Therefore, it appears that the explanation of Rav Alfas that the words two and three of the Braiso refer to people is correct. And this is what the Braiso is saying: the birchas zimun can be divided between two or three people who will lead the birchas hamozon when each one of them knows only how to recite one b’rochoh.Tosfos now explains how each of the Braisos mentioned understand the division of the b’rochos. The Braiso that says two and three holds that zimun is till הזן, as Rav Shaishes does, this means that birchas hazimun is until and including הזן, and that the leader of the group recites till the end of הזן, because it is like one long b’rochoh of zimun. And the reason he says “two or three” is because he means to say that sometimes the entire birchas hamozon is completed by two leaders who know how to recite a b’rochoh, and the same is true of one, that the entire birchas hamozon may be said by one leader, but he mentioned two to teach us something of importance. And sometimes it can be completed by three people, that one recites from נברך till הזן, and the second one says נודה לך and the third one says till בונה ירושלים. But it cannot be completed by four leaders.There are two possible scenarios that one could add a fourth leader. A) To divide a b’rochoh in half. b) To separate נברך and הזן. The Braiso is rejecting both of these options.Tosfos is rejecting option a). But they cannot divide a b’rochoh in half, if one only knows half of a b’rochoh.Tosfos is rejecting option b). However, there cannot be a fourth leader, for נברך alone is not considered a b’rochoh, and therefore it is impossible to separate those two נברך and הזן.And the one who says that birchas hamozon can be divided among four people, holds that zimun is till נברך, because נברך is considered one b’rochoh for itself, and הזן is another b’rochoh and that is what is meant by the Braiso when it says that there are four, that one says נברך, and the second leader says הזן, and the third one says נודה לך and the fourth says until and including ירושלים בונה. Thus, there is a possibility of a fourth leader. 
  
  Daf 46b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  WHO IS GOOD AND DOES GOOD. And if you ask: Why does this b’rochoh, He is good and does good, begin with ברוך isn’t it adjoining its associate, the previous b’rochoh בונה ירושלים? And we have learned that when a b’rochoh is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh it is not necessary for it to begin with ברוך. And we can answer: That it was instituted separately, not as a part of the original birchas hamozon, because of the massacred of Beitar, who were not allowed to be buried for many years. When the Roman governors eventually permitted their burial a b’rochoh was added to birchas hamozon to honor the event and the great miracle, that their bodies did not decay over a period of many years. The b’rochoh maintains its special identity by beginning with ברוך.הטוב והמטיב is a rather long b’rochoh. Usually b’rochos of this length begin with ברוך and conclude with 'ברוך אתה ד. And if you ask: Why doesn’t it conclude with 'ברוך אתה ד? And we can answer: Because initially it was a short b’rochoh, but later after the initial enactment to recite the b’rochoh they further enacted that we should recite three times the Kingdom of Hashem. Those are 1) מהמלך הטוב (3 מלכנו (2 מלך העולם.And three times the phrase גמול. Those are 1) הוא יגמלנו (3 הוא גמלנו (2 הוא גומלנו And three expressions of Hashem’s goodness.  Those are 1) הוא ייטיב (3 הוא מטיב (2 הוא הטיב   Tosfos now turns his attention to another b’rochoh that seems to begin with ברוך but does not conclude with ברוך. In most sidurim the first b’rochoh after the Haftorah is divided into two paragraphs. It seems that these are two separate b’rochos and that the first one begins with ברוך and the second one begins with נאמן. Tosfos explains that this is not so. And the paragraph that begins with אתה נאמן of the b’rochos of the Haftorah, which seems to be an independent b’rochoh that does not conclude with ברוך, is from the previous b’rochoh. And the reason it is written in larger letters is because in earlier times, the congregation usually stood up and declared in a loud voice, you Hashem are trusted etc. when the youngster who was reading the b’rochos of the Haftorah arrived there.
  
  Daf 47a
  
  
  
  Daf 47b
  
  
  
  Daf 48a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  THE HALAKHA IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS, RATHER WITH A MINOR WHO KNOWS. Tosfos will clarify which of the previous teachings about the leniencies for forming a zimun or a minyon R’ Nachmon is rejecting. It appears that this statement that the halochoh is not in accordance with all the previously mentioned teachings also refers to R’ Yochonon’s ruling about a minor who has sprouted pubic hairs, and is saying that we do not rule as R’ Yochonon does. And this is not clear, for it is not the way of the Gemara to reject the words of amoroim and the Braiso that was brought as proof to R’ Yochonon without any reason for the rejection.And we can answer: That it does refer to the minor who has sprouted pubic hairs, but the R’ Nachmon is not rejecting R’ Yochonon’s ruling, rather, he is modifying it. It means to say R’ Yochonon’s teaching that a minor who sprouts may be included in the zimun, is exclusively when he knows to whom he is reciting the b’rochoh, and both, sprouting and knowledge of to whom the b’rochoh is addressed are required.And according to our explanation we must say that the Gemara did not cite the story of Abaye and Rovo as far as uniting with them for the zimun, but to clarify the concept of a minor who knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed. For most probably they, Abaye and Rovo, were not sprouting at that time. For if they were sprouting, which places them at about thirteen years of age, wherein is their greatness that they knew to whom the b’rochoh is addressed when they were already thirteen years old? And Raboh also who asked them this question, that was to show that they had understanding even though they were quite young and not to unite with them for a zimun since they had not sprouted as of yet.Rabainu Tam will now prove that the Gemara’s statement that the halochoh is not in accordance with all the previous teachings does not refer to the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who said that a minor in his crib can be used as the tenth for a zimun of ten. And Rabainu Tam says that although the halochoh is not like all the Gemara’s previously mentioned teachings, however the halochoh is in accordance with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who said that an actual minor may be used as an accessory to be counted as a tenth so that the name of Hashem may be recited in the zimun. And here, where the Gemara requires that the minor be sprouting, that is when we are using him as the third in order to recite the zimun.And the statement the halochoh is not in accordance with all these teachings does not refer to R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee. And this can also be deduced from the fact that the Gemara interrupts its list of leniencies about uniting for a zimun after teaching us R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee’s ruling about using a child in a crib as a tenth with the story about R’ Eliezer who freed his slave so that they would have a minyon, and with another teaching of R’ Y’B’L’ that says that one should always awaken early to come to the synagogue and with the Braiso1<i class="footnote">See Maharsho who says that no such Braiso that supports R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee appears in our text of the Gemara. Tosfos may have had a variant text oh.</i> that teaches as he did.If it does not refer to the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, to which teachings does it refer? Rather, it refers to those teachings that follow the Braiso that supports him, R’ Yehosua ben Laivee, that one should awaken early etc. For example, nine men and an ark, or Shabos and two men, or nine that appear as ten, or two scholars who sharpen each other’s learning, or a minor who is sprouting. Even though we learned that in a Braiso, to include the minor who sprouts, Rav Nachmon will set up that Braiso that it is speaking of when the minor does not know to whom the b’rochoh is addressed.2<i class="footnote">See Maharsho.</i> And that is also in agreement with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who says earlier that we cannot unite with a minor for zimun, the meaning is that the minor is laying in a crib, and obviously is unaware of to whom the b’rochoh is addressed until he knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed, but even while lying in a crib he can be used as an accessory to ten. That means for birchas hamozon. And the same is true for a tenth for prayer, for in this matter R’ Nachmon does not argue with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee. For when does R’ Nachmon require that the minor knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed, and that he is sprouting as we explained, at the very beginning of this Tosfos, that is only as far as a zimun of three, but as an accessory for ten he agrees with R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee that he can be an accessory for ten, in order to recite Hashem’s name in the birchas hazimun.And the same is true for prayer that a minor can combine with nine men as a minyon. And this can be deduced from the Gemara that challenges R’ Yehosua ben Laivee from the story of R’ Eliezer who freed his slave so that they could have a quorum for prayer and presented this as a challenge to R” Yehoshua ben Laivee who is discussing birchas hamozon. It is evident that the Gemara is equating the quorum required for prayer with the quorum required for birchas hamozon.Rabainu Tam finds a clear contradiction to his position that we see from our Gemara that the minyon required for prayer is the same as the minyon for birchas hamozon. However, this is bewildering, for in B’raishis Rabo (Chapter 91) the Midrosh says about the teaching of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, that it was said for birchas hamozon only, but not for a quorum for prayer. This obviously contradicts the way Rabainu Tam understands our Gemara.Rabainu Tam acknowledges that the Midrosh contradicts him, however the Midrosh is also contradicting our Gemara and therefore the Halochoh is not like the Midrosh. And Rabainu Tam used to say about the Midrosh that contradicts his explanation of the Gemara, that the halochoh is not like the Midrosh because it argues on our Gemara. For certainly R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee who says that we can use a minor as an accessory for a tenth said it for prayer as well, since we see that the Gemara challenges him from the story of R’ Eliezer that is speaking about prayer. Our Gemara definitely equates prayer with birchas hamozon as far as the quorum required is concerned and does not agree with the Midrosh.Tosfos deals with what was a custom in his time and in some circles even used today. And there are those who say that we may unite with a minor for prayer, with the stipulation that he must have a chumosh in his hand. And Rabainu Tam says that it is a nonsensical custom. For just as the Gemara argues, is the ark a person when the Gemara said that nine men and an ark unite to form a quorum, so too, we can argue, is the chumosh a person who can unite for a quorum? And furthermore, the Gemara that says, a minor can combine with nine men to create a quorum, that is even without a chumosh. Our Gemara, which discusses the issue, never mentions that the minor must be holding a chumosh.And furthermore, we do not see in any place that a chumosh would help for a quorum, it is mentioned only in the story of when they made a leap year when they went up to the attic as is mentioned in the Chapters of R” Eliezer (Chapter 8) where it says: With three sages we declare a leap year. R’ Eliezer says with ten, and if they were less than ten, we bring a sefer Torah and we make a circle etc.This may be the source of the concept of using a sefer Torah with a minor, but Tosfos is far from convinced. And it is not mentioned there in the Chapters of R’ Eliezer, that the minor should hold the sefer Torah. And there it says only that a sefer Torah that is made to be rolled can be used when there is a shortage of a person but our chumoshim that are not rolled up as a sefer Torah could not be used in place of a person.Tosfos introduces another Yerushalmee. Rabainu Tam interprets it in accordance with his position. However R’I disagrees. However, it says in Yerushalmee: R’ Yosee said there were times that I ate with R’ Chalafto, my father, and R’ Chanino bar Sarsee, my uncle, and they did not count me for the zimun until I grew two hairs. And from there it appears that to unite for zimun we do not act until the minor grows two hairs, but for combining for a quorum for prayer we do act even though the tenth person is a minor, as Rabainu Tam says.R’I disagrees with Rabainu Tam. He uses this Yerushalmee as his source. And from this Yerushalmee, R’I says that we do not use a minor as an accessory neither for prayer nor for birchas hamozon. And the R’I says that even Rabainu Tam himself did not custmarily do that, to use a minor as an accessory for ten. And he did not actually do that. And therefore, even with a chumosh in the minor’s hand it does not facilitate the matter as we explained. Since the minor himself is ineffective as far as a quorum is concerned, even with a chumosh in his hand, he is ineffective.Rav Nachmon’s own ruling of leniency is still in effect. However, a minor who is sprouting and knows to whom the b’rochoh is addressed it appears that we may recite bircas zimun on account of him even if he is a third member of the zimun and it is certainly true if he is the tenth for a zimun to say Hashem’s name as it says in the Braiso, and there is no one who argues about this.In conclusion, Tosfos rejects Rabainu Tam’s conclusion that a minor can be used as a tent member of a minyon. And this is the text of our Master who rules in conclusion of this matter: We do not make a minor an accessory for ten for a zimun of ten and for prayer and for three, a zimun, until he grows two hairs as is indicated in the story about R’ Yosee bar Chalafto in Yerushalmee.And that which we say in Yerushalmee: That a minor and a sefer Torah are made an accessory which seems to imply that a minor with a sefer Torah can be used as a tenth to complete a quorum, says R’I that the correct text is “a minor to a sefer Torah” and the meaning is that the minor is an accessory to the reading of the Torah. And specifically there, for the reading of the Torah, as the Gemara says there in M’giloh (23a) that a minor counts toward the count of seven readers of the Torah, even a minor, even a woman if not for the honor of the congregation, but for other matters such as a quorum for prayer and birchas hamozon a minor or a woman cannot be used.And even if we should find in some place that a minor and a chumosh combine to be used as a tenth even for prayer, that leniency would apply specifically to a chumosh that is made to be rolled up just as a sefer Torah is rolled but not to our chomoshim. And according to the explanation of Rabainu Tam, a chumosh in the hand of a minor accomplishes nothing at all, but a minor alone is an accessory as a tenth to form a minyon, but two minors cannot be used, as we see here in the story of R’ Eliezer, who allowed the use of one slave as an accessory to a minyon, but not two. And Rabainu Tam explained the Yerushalmee about R’ Yosee bar Chalafto, who said that his father and uncle would not include him in the zimun till he grew two hairs, that was said specifically about using him as a third for the zimun, but he could be used as a tenth both for prayer and birchas hamozon.
  
  Daf 48b
  
  
  
  Daf 49a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  THE ONE WHO SAID THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE[ MENTION OF] GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY HOLDS THAT [IT IS REQUIRED BY] TORAH LAW. The Gemara says that the one, who holds that הטוב והמטיב is required by the Torah, holds that there is no need to mention the Kingdom of Hashem since it is adjacent to the previous b’rochos. However, the one who holds that its origin is Rabbinic holds that we must mention the Kingdom of Hashem because it is a separate entity, not a continuation of the previous b’rochos. Rashi wonders why according to the one who holds it is required by Torah law we begin the b’rochoh with ברוך, after all, it is adjacent to the previous b’rochoh and a b’rochoh that is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh does not begin with ברוך?Rashi asked: since this b’rochoh is required by Torah law, why does it begin with ברוך, it is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh? And he answered that it is a short b’rochoh, and it is merely gratitude to Hashem like the b’rochoh for fruits and the b’rochoh for Mitzvos. Just as they are relatively short b’rochos, so too, this b’rochoh of הטוב והמטיב is a short b’rochoh. As Rashi explains its opening is its conclusion; therefore it must begin with ברוך.Tosfos finds Rashi’s explanation a bit problematic. And this is bewildering, why did they alter this b’rochoh more so than other b’rochos that are adjacent to a previous b’rochoh that they conclude with ברוך and they do not begin with ברוך? Since this b’rochoh is required by Torah law, we should say a lengthier request of Hashem as we do in other long b’rochos, and conclude with ברוך, and not make it unlike than other b’rochos.And we answer: that this argument is correct, and the one who holds that this b’rochoh is required by the Torah, concludes the b’rochoh with ברוך and does not begin it withברוך. And so it is in the Tosefto explicitly, that R’ Yosee HaG’leelee used to say a lengthy version of the B’rochoh and concluded the b’rochoh with ברוך. This explanation follows the one who holds that הטוב והמטיב is required by Torah law.However, we rule that it is required by Rabbinic law, and therefore it is required that the Kingdom of Hashem be mentioned as the Gemara says, it requires twice mentioning the Kingdom of Hashem to compensate for Kingdom not being mentioned in the second and third b’rochos, besides the mentioning of Kingdom for itself.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  [IT] REQUIRES TWO MENTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY BESIDES ITS OWN. Rav Popo explained that R’ Yochonon is teaching us that we must mention the Kingship of Hashem three times in הטוב והמטיב, once because the b’rochoh itself requires it, since it is Rabbinic, as explained earlier, and another two times to compensate for the fact that in the second and third b’rochoh Kingship is not mentioned. Tosfos struggles to explain why it is necessary to compensate for Kingship that is not mentioned in the second b’rochoh. The b’rochoh הטוב והמטיב requires that we mention Kingship twice to compensate for the second and third b’rochos, besides once for itself. Of the two that are mentioned as compensation, one is for Kingship that should have been mentioned in בונה ירושלים, even though בונה ירושלים is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh and ordinarily does not need to have Kingship mentioned in it, this case is different because we mention the kingship of David and it is not proper to mention the kingdom of David and not the Kingship of Hashem. And in the b’rochoh of בונה ירושלים itself we cannot mention Kingship of Hashem because it is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh;1<i class="footnote">Tosfos seems to hold that when a b’rochoh is adjacent to a previous b’rochoh one is not permitted to mention Kingship in that b’rochoh and that is why the Kingship of בונה ירושלים must be said in הטוב והמטיב. There are Reeshonim who hold that although Kingship is not required in a b’rochoh that is adjacent to a precious b’rochoh, it is not forbidden to say it. The reason that the Kingship is not mentioned in בונה ירושלים is because saying the Kingship of Hashem in the same b’rochoh as the kingship of David would seem to be equating the two and that must be avoided.</i> therefore it must be said in הטוב והמטיב.Tosfos will now explain why Kingship for the second b’rochoh, referred to as the b’rochoh of the land is also recited in הטוב והמטיב.2<i class="footnote">Most other Reeshonim disagree with Tosfos on this point. They hold that even though Kingship need not be mentioned in the b’rochoh for the land, as long as we are compensating for the missing Kingship in בונה ירושלים we also mention a Kingship a third time for what would have been the Kingship of the b’rochoh for the land even though it is not really necessary. See Tosfos HoRosh and Tosfos Rabainu Yehudoh HaChosid.</i> Tosfos understands that there must be a reason why the Kingship of the b’rochoh of the land needs to be compensated. If there was no need to mention Kingship in that b’rochoh at all, why would one have to compensate for it? And since one says the Kingship of בונה ירושלים in הטוב והמטיב in order to compensate for not mentioning it in בונה ירושלים and it should have been mentioned because it is not proper to mention the Kingdom of David without mentioning the Kingship of Hashem, one also says the Kingship of the b’rochoh of the land.Tosfos wonders why one needs to compensate for not mentioning Kingship of the B’rochoh of the land. Even though, the b’rochoh for the land is adjacent to its associate, the first b’rochoh, and should therefore not require that Kingship be mentioned at all, there is a reason that the b’rochoh for the land should require that Kingship be mentioned and that is: since they were not initially instituted to be said, one following the other. For Yehoshua instituted the b’rochoh for the land and Moshe instituted ברכת המזן.3<i class="footnote">Tosfos seems to be saying that because of the chronology of the b’rochos, each of the b’rochos really should mention Kingship and that is why we do have to compensate for the missing Kingship of the b’rochoh for the land. This presents a problem. The Gemara said that we must recite Kingship for בונה ירושלים because it is not proper to mention the kingdom of David without mentioning the Kingship of Hashem. Why did the Gemara need to give this reason? According to Tosfos בונה ירושלים requires Kingship because it was not initially said together with the first two b’rochos and was added during the times of Kings David and Solomon. This is very puzzling.</i> For this reason the Gemara mentions that we must compensate for Kingship that was not mentioned in the second b’rochoh because they are not actually adjacent since they were not instituted at the same time.However, nowadays that for us they have been instituted to be said in order we do not begin the second and third b’rochoh with ברוך.4<i class="footnote">Tosfos is teaching us that although these b’rochos were initially separate b’rochos, even so, nowadays they are said as a group of b’rochos and they are therefore said with the rules governing a group of b’rochos. Therefore we do not begin each b’rochoh with ברוך. However as far as Kingship is concerned we do compensate for the Kingship that is removed from the second and third b’rochos by adding them to the fourth Rabbinic b’rochoh.</i> And there are those who have a custom to say Kingship in  בונה ירושלים.5<i class="footnote">Maharsho says that this is not at the beginning of the b’rochoh, but in the middle. When we say אלקינו אבינו רוענו some add מלכנו. See Rashbo, who holds that when the title King is used in the middle of a b’rochoh, this may not be a violation of what Tosfos holds in note 1. The Rashbo himself is uncertain about this matter.</i>
  
  Line 19
  
  BLESSED…WHO GAVE SHABBATOT FOR REST ETC. When one forgets to say רצה on Shabos and reminds himself before he starts the next b’rochoh הטוב והמטיב, he inserts this b’rochoh between the two b’rochos. And if you ask: why does it begin with ברוך; it is adjacent to the previous b’rochoh?And we can answer: since it was not initially instituted to be said there, only occasionally, when one forgot to say רצה והחליצנו, it is not considered adjacent to a previous b’rochoh and requires an opening with ברוך.Once Tosfos is on the topic of examining which b’rochos do not require Kingship because they are adjacent to a previous b’rochoh, Tosfos takes a look at the b’rochos of sh’moneh esray. And in the b’rochos of the eighteen b’rochos of prayer, we do not mention Kingship in any of the b’rochos because they are all adjacent to the b’rochos that have the text קל חי וקים1.<i class="footnote">The commentators are very puzzled about this quotation. They are not sure which phrase Tosfos is referring to. In the last b’rochoh prior to sh’moneh esray we find the words ברכות והודאות למלך קן חי וקים. If Tosfos is referring to this phrase it  presents an obvious problem; this is only said during the Morning Prayer. שפתי חכמים suggests that the proper text may be קל עליון that appears in the first b’rochoh of sh’moneh esray. The declaration that Hashem is קל עליון, the G-d of the Uppermost is the equivalent of Kingship.</i> All the b’rochos following that b’rochoh need not mention Kingship.Alternatively, the words אלקי אברהם are the equivalent of  Kingship, as we say earlier (7b), from the time of creation, there was no person who called the Holy One blessed is He, Master, till Avrohom our father came and called Him, Master, as is written: My Master, Hashem what are you giving me? (B’raishis 15). Since Avrohom our father was the first to proclaim Hashem’s Kingship on the world, the reference of the G-d of Abraham is the equivalent of mentioning Kingship, because that was Avrohom’s function in the world, to recognize and proclaim His Kingship.Tosfos returns to the original topic, the b’rochoh inserted when one forgets to say רצה והחליצנו. And if it is a holiday as well as Shabos, he incorporates the holiday with Shabos and says: blessed is he who gave Shabos for tranquility and holidays for Yisroel to rejoice. And the same is for when Shabos and Rosh Chodesh occur together.
  
  Daf 49b
  
  
  
  Daf 50a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  RATHER, MUSTN’T ONE CONCLUDE FROM THIS: LET US BLESS IS PREFERABLE? Rashi and Tosfos agree on the issues of this Gemara. Primarily, that there is no proof that נברך is preferable to ברכו. What the Gemara does do, is prove that ברכו is not preferred, and once that is established, Shmuel’s thought that it is better to include oneself with the others makes נברך preferable. The issue between Rashi and Tosfos is semantics. Rashi holds that the word עדיף means - better than. If we say the נברך עדיף that means that נברך is better. But we have no proof that נברך is better than ברכו. Therefore Rashi emends the text. The correct reading of the Gemara according to Rashi is אף ברכו קאמר that our Mishna is saying that ברכו is also acceptable. Once we know that ברכו is not preferred then we make the judgment that נברך is better because of Shmuel’s reason. Tosfos shows that the word עדיף doesn’t have to mean - better than, but it can also mean that something is important and worthy of consideration. If so, it is not necessary to emend the text.When we use the phrase נברך עדיף, it does not particularly mean that it is better than ברכו as Rashi understands the word; rather, it means that they are equal. And the word עדיף means – important as we find “a comparison by the verse is עדיף” and “a textual similarity is עדיף” in perek Aizehu M’komun (Z’vochim 48a). The Gemara means to say not that a “comparison by the verse” is more important than a “textual similarity” but that it is important and must be considered and we do not annul it in the face of a “textual similarity”. We do not say that the “textual similarity” is more important and we should follow it, to the exclusion of the “comparison by the verse”, rather the “comparison” must be dealt with. The word עדיף there clearly does not mean that the “comparison” is better than the textual similarity”.And here as well the Gemara is saying that נברך is as important as ברכו, and therefore, once we know that it is equal, one should follow Shmuel’s reasoning and not exclude himself from the group. And Rashi erased עדיף, however it comes out well as we explained.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  FOR THE FOOD [WE HAVE EATEN], HE IS AN IGNORAMUS. Tosfos explains why one who says על המזון is an ignoramus. Rashi’s position is unclear. Some hold that Rashi agrees with Rav Alfas who says that the reason we do not say על המזון is because it appears that we are blessing the food and not Hashem. See Rosh, this perek, Chapter 26. Because it appears as if he is blessing the master of the house who is presently feeding him, for if he meant the Merciful One, why does he specifically mention that the blessing is for food, notwithstanding food there is much for which to bless Him?Rabainu Chananel said that this is how we rule, and therefore whether there are ten, one hundred or ten thousand one says: “let us bless our G-d upon the food that we have eaten”, but when there are only three, he should not mention “upon the food” as the Gemara said earlier. And also when there are ten, if he does not want to say “upon the food” he has permission to omit it. The Gemara that says that with ten, one may say “upon the food” does not mean that one must say it, it only means that one may say “upon the food”. And he says: and through His goodness and not from His goodness.
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  THREE [INDIVIDUALS] WHO SAT TO EAT AS ONE. Tosfos seems to explain the first version of our Gemara as the text of the second version implies. Tosfos does not mention anything about a second version at all. Perhaps Tosfos only had one version and explained it as Rav Alfas does. The Gemara is explaining why the Mishna seems to repeat itself. There must be something new that we learn from this repetition. Even though they were divided as far as their bread is concerned, and are not acting as one group, for they are each eating of their own bread, they may not separate for birchas hamozon and they must stay together for zimun, even though they are divided for bread, and it would enter upon our minds that the obligation for zimun is not in effect for them, even so, they are not permitted to separate.
  
  Daf 50b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  BUT [THOSE MEMBERS] DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE ZIMMUN IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLACE. Rashi says that each one had been a member of a group of zimun. As they were leaving their respective groups, the other two members of each group asked them to remain for a moment and listen to the zimun. They complied. Since they have actually been part of a zimun, they no longer have the obligation of zimun and the three of them are not a zimun together. Tosfos offers another explanation. The explanation is that each one of the three that have formed a new group was eating together with a group and interrupted his meal so that the others who were reclined with him could say the zimun, and he remained there until they completed הזן, as is mentioned earlier (45b), and then the three came together to form a new group. When they each answered the zimun with their respective group the obligation to recite zimun flew away from upon them, this, flew away, means that they are exempt from zimun because they have already fulfilled their obligation, and they are now permitted to separate.1<i class="footnote">See Rosh Chapter 29, who explains that even though they ate together in the newly formed group, they are not obligated for zimun, since the initial obligation comes from their original groups where they recited the b’rochoh of המוציא and ate together, and that obligation “flew away” from them they do no become obligated again when they form a new group.</i> And Rashi did not explain it so.
  
  Line 2
  
  [A BED] THAT WAS DIVIDED BY BROTHERS OR BY PARTNERS, IT IS RITUALLY PURE. The bed frame of the Mishna consists of two sideboards, a headboard, a footboard and four legs. The legs may be attached to the sideboards, or to the footboard and headboard. When the Mishna speaks of a bed that has been divided, it means that the various parts of the bed are no longer attached and therefore no longer qualify as a bed and in this condition it will not become tomay when exposed to a source of tumoh, and if it had already been tomay, and then dismantled the tumoh ceases to be since it is no longer a bed. This is bewildering, for the Gemara says in Sukoh (16a) that a bed becomes tomay even when it is in parts,1<i class="footnote"> אברים Literally means limbs. When we say that an item is in limbs it means that it has been taken apart.</i> it has been dismantled, for example, when you have a long sideboard and two legs that are together. It is clear that the whole bed need not be in one piece to become tomay. Why does the Mishna say that if the bed has been divided it is no longer tomay?2<i class="footnote">See Maharsho who quotes a Tosfos in Sukoh that offers a relatively simple answer. That Gemara is speaking of when all the unassembled parts belong to one person. Since they can be assembled, they are considered a bed. Our Gemara is speaking of when the ownership is divided and there is no assumption that the individual parts will be used together again.</i>And it appears to me that there it is speaking of when it can be reassembled as it originally was and it can be repaired. For the legs are intact and a layman can put it back together. Since it is easily reassembled, it maintains its status as a bed, even though the parts are not presently attached. However when the parts are not easily reassembled, it loses its status as a bed and is no longer tomay.And if you ask: why doesn’t the Gemara ask in order to prove its point from every vessel that breaks and is tohor? We see that since it has been split the tumoh flies away.3<i class="footnote">A euphemism for bringing out that its status has changed and the previous tumoh is no longer in effect.</i> And it appears to me, that there, every vessel that breaks, is different, because the vessel is no longer fit to come together as one and to become tomay even for the future. This is it is not similar to three people who are eligible to combine for zimun again.
  
  Daf 51a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  INITIALLY, THE MAN WAS UNFIT. This is bewildering, but a tomay is not prohibited from reciting a b’rochoh?And Rashi explained that those who have had emissions are prohibited1<i class="footnote">See Rosh Chapter 34, who explains that even though nowadays a baal keree may recite words of Torah, and there is no time that the tomay cannot recite a b’rochoh before the immersion, the initial custom that was to recite a b’rochoh for immersion did not change. Tosfos may feel that to say that the present custom is based on a rule that is no longer in effect is inappropriate. He therefore searches for a case where even today the b’rochoh must be made after the immersion, even though it is not a terribly common occurrence.</i> to recite words of Torah and b’rochos as well, as we have seen in the second perek. And we can say that it, the Braiso, is speaking of the immersion of converts who cannot recite a b’rochoh before the immersion, because they do not have the mitzvos at that point in time. They will first have mitzvos after they come out of the mikvoh. They cannot say that He commanded us when there is no command as of yet. And because of that immersion where the b’rochoh must be said after one immerses, they required that for all other immersions as well the b’rochoh be recited after the immersion.We find that for other mitzvos as well, the b’rochoh is always recited after the performance of the mitzvoh, because there are some times that the b’rochoh cannot be recited before the mitzvoh. And the same is true of washing one’s hand before eating. The b’rochoh is always recited after we wash our hands. Because sometimes a person comes from the lavatory, and his hands are unclean, and it is not suitable for him to recite a b’rochoh until after he washes. Therefore, it became the custom of the people to recite all other b’rochos for washing hands after washing.
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  WE ONLY HAVE FOUR THINGS. R’ Zairo said in the name of R’ Abohu, that there are ten things that are done as an expression of respect for the cup of blessing. R’ Yochonon says that we have only four. On the surface it appears as if there is a disagreement. Tosfos explores this issue. R’Yochono only mentions four expressions of respect that are done for the cup of blessing, however, it does not appear that R’ Yochonon argues about placing the cup in his right hand even though he does not mention it among his four things as the Gemara says later: R’ Yochonon said the earlier generations asked: if the left hand can be used to support the right hand? It appears from the question, that this was their custom, to hold the cup in the right hand and we do not find that R’ Yochonon argues with that. Rather, it appears that he is presenting the custom as a matter of fact.1<i class="footnote">See Artscroll note 34, for an interesting explanation of the apparent contradiction between R’ Yochonon’s stated position and what was practiced.</i>Tosfos presents further proof that some of the other ten things that R’ Yochonon does not mention among his four things were practiced by the amoroim. However, from the fact that the amoroim practiced crowning and covering, it appears that they were stringent upon themselves and observed all of the ten things that R’ Zairo said in the name of R’ Abohu. And therefore one should be stringent in all these matters that pertain to the cup of blessing.
  [IT REQUIRES RINSING] AND WASHING; [IT MUST BE] UNDILUTED [WINE], AND FULL. In Yerushalmee at the end of our perek: R’ Acho said: three things have been said about a cup of blessing; it must be full, crowned and washed. And all three of them are derived from the verseנפתלי שבע רצון ומלא ברכת ה' (D’vorim 33, 23) שבע refers to crowning,1<i class="footnote">The commentators on the Yerushalmee say that crowning means that it is surrounded with other cups that give the appearance of satiation.</i> רצון refers to washed2<i class="footnote">When the cup is washed and is sanitary, it finds favor by all even those who may be repulsed by an unclean cup.</i> and ומלא is as it means, full.
  WASHING IS FROM THE OUTSIDE AND RINSING IS FROM THE INSIDE. And R’I explained that washing and rinsing are required specifically when the cup is not clean,1<i class="footnote"> יפהliterally means nice or fine. In the context Tosfos is using this word it translates as clean.</i> when there are leftovers of other cups in the cup. However, if it, the cup is clean without washing and rinsing, that is fine. For it is only required that the cup be clean.
  
  Line 18
  
  HE MERITS [REWARD] IN TWO WORLDS. How do we see from this verse that one who recites the b’rochoh on a full cup merits reward in two worlds? HoRav Yosaif of Marseilles explained: that the word in the verse that means inherit should have been written as רש and it was written ירשה. There is a superfluous 'י and 'ה . And with a 'י and 'ה the two worlds were created, as the Gemara says in HaT’chailes (M’nochos 29b) in explanation of the verse “for through ה'י, Hashem created worlds. The word ה'י is taken as if the letters are divided and it is stating that Hashem used the ה to create this world and the י to create the next world. When applied to the verse discussing a full cup being used for the cup of blessing, it is saying that one who uses a full cup will merit to רש inherit the two worlds hinted at by the superfluous ה and י.
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  WHAT IS [THE RULING, MAY] THE LEFT [HAND] ASSIST THE RIGHT? When and why would it be necessary to have the right hand supported by the left hand?The question is speaking of large cups that are difficult to hold with one hand or it is speaking of Rosh Chodesh Teves that comes on Shabos which is on Chanukoh when we recite the longest birchas hamozon because of all the additions.1<i class="footnote">On that Shabos we add יעלה ויבא, רצה and על הניסים.</i> Or it is speaking of a meal   celebrating a marriage and it is required to recite a lengthy birchas hamozon.2<i class="footnote">That also includes the seven blessings for the marriage meal.</i>
  
  Daf 51b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  ONE MAY NOT SPEAK OVER A CUP OF BLESSING. Rashi explained that the one who is reciting the blessing should not speak from the time they gave him the cup. And the same applies for the recliners, who will listen to him recite the b’rochoh, that they are not allowed to speak for it is required that the listener and the speaker1 give their attention to the b’rochoh. And also the listeners should not interrupt their attention from the birchas hamozon with mundane talk just as the one who recites is not allowed to talk.According to Tosfos understanding, one may not talk while he is involved with the performance of the mitzvo of birchas hamozo. Tosfos finds another Gemara that seems to contradict this. And even though we said there (the last perek of Rosh Hashonoh 34b): One who heard nine blasts of the shofor extended over nine hours of the day has fulfilled his obligation. It appears that the listener most probably spoke in between, and even so he fulfilled his obligation, which contradicts what we have learned about birchas hamozon, that one may not talk during the b’rochoh.  Tosfos explains that there is a difference between what one may initially do and what is effective de facto. But initially, one may not do so, to talk while he is in the process of listening to shofor, even if it is over an extended period. Our Gemara here is saying that initially one may not talk during birchas hamozon and this in no way contradicts the Gemara in Rosh Hashonoh. However, it appears that this, that he fulfills his obligation de facto if he has spoken during birchas hamozon is specifically if he spoke while the one reciting the b’rochoh was silent for a moment, but if he was speaking while the one reciting was reciting the b’rochoh, he has not fulfilled his obligation even de facto.
  
  Daf 52a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  R' YEHOSHUA, WHO SAID [THAT] ONE DISREGARDS A HEAVENLY VOICE.  It appears that R’ Yehoshua holds, that one may never follow a heavenly voice. And if you ask: if so, that this Braiso follows the opinion of R’ Yehoshua that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, there is a contradiction between rulings. For in that story of R’ Yehoshua by the oven of the snake,1<i class="footnote">The Gemara in Bovo M’tzee’o refers to the debate about a particular oven as תנור עכנאי the oven of the snake, because they surrounded the oven with many halochos as a snake wraps itself around its victim.</i> we rule like R’ Yehoshua and we do not follow the heavenly voice that said the ruling is in accordance with R’ Eliezer, and we rule that the halochoh is always in accordance with Bais Hilel following that heavenly voice. In one instance we rule like the heavenly voice and in the other we don’t.Tosfos says that there is a difference in what the heavenly vopice is telling us. And we can answer: that exclusively there by the oven of the snake it was said that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice because the heavenly voice was ruling against the majority, and the Torah has already taught us that we do rule according to the majority. Since the heavenly voice was inconsistent with the ruling of the Torah we do not follow it. However, Bais Hilel is the majority and the heavenly voice that said to follow them is consistent with the rules of the Torah, so we do follow that heavenly voice.Since there is an essential difference between the two heavenly voices, why does the Gemara cite R’ Yehoshua’s opinion about the heavenly voice in regard to the oven in our Gemara where the subject is a heavenly voice that is consistent with the ruling of the Torah about following a majority? Even though the Gemara cites R’ Yehoshua here, even though this case is not similar to the case of the oven of the snake because there it was different, and R’ Yehoshua holds that the reason we do not follow the heavenly voice there is because the heavenly voice was against the majority, but he would agree that we follow the heavenly voice here when it concurs with the majority.2<i class="footnote">In five places elsewhere in Shas, (see M’sores Hashas for all the places in Shas where this issue is discussed) Tosfos says that although R’ Yehoshua was referring to the heavenly voice that defended R’ Eliezer, which was ruling against the majority and he could hold that we follow a heavenly voice that rules in favor of the majority, since R’ Yehoshua uses the expression “it is not in heaven”, it appears that R’ Yehoshua holds that we never follow a heavenly voice. That is why the Gemara consistently presents R’ Yehoshua as the one who holds that we do no follow a heavenly voice at all. One must speculate why Tosfos here seem to choose a different path for the resolution of this problem. Especially since Tosfos does not really seem to answer his original question. Tosfos initially asked why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned in our Gemara, since he conceivably holds that we follow a heavenly voice that is consistent with the majority? Tosfos answers that the Tano of the Braiso maintains a stronger position than R’ Yehoshua in his rejection of heavenly voices. This does not truly answer the question. We should still ask: why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned at all? It is not his position that is being taught in the Braiso. Perhaps Tosfos holds that the Gemara would not present an opinion of a Tano that flatly rejects any heavenly voice at all, unless we are already aware that R’ Yehoshua rejects a heavenly voice when it rules against the majority. Once we are aware that R’ Yehoshua holds that there are at least some heavenly voices that we need not pay heed, we can then take the next step of saying that a Tano holds that we need not pay attention to any heavenly voice.</i> However, this Tano, of the Braiso quoted in our Gemara, is stronger than R’ Yehoshua in his rejection of heavenly voices for he says that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice even when the majority supports the heavenly voice, because the scholars of Bais Shamai were sharper than Bais Hilel and that may overrule the majority.And if you ask: why is there a distinction, that for kidush and havdoloh we first recite the b’rochoh on wine and then the kidush or havdoloh, and for birchas hamozon, we do not recite the b’rochoh on wine until after we recite the three b’rochos of birchas hamozon?And we can answer: that to recite the b’rochoh on the wine before birchas hamozon would present a problem, for how could we do this? Assume we were to rule that one recites the b’rochoh on wine before the birchas hamozon, if so; the birchas hamozon would constitute elimination of intent to drink the wine, since he is in the midst of reciting a b’rochoh that signifies the cessation of a meal. For it is readily understood by other b’rochos, such as kidush and havdoloh, the one reciting the b’rochoh has not withdrawn himself from drinking by reciting the kidush or havdoloh after the b’rochoh on wine, for when reciting kidush he still wants to eat, but he must recite kidush in order to eat. The kidush is therefore not viewed as an interruption between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking. And when reciting havdoloh he wants to drink but cannot do so until he recites havdoloh, but by birchas hamozon he withdraws himself from drinking because the birchas hamozon is by definition the conclusion of a meal. The reciting of the birchas hamozon between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking of the wine, is an interruption.
  
  Line 2
  
  HE LEAVES IT FOR AFTER THE MEAL By saying that we leave the cup of wine, to be used later for reciting the birchas hamozon on the wine, we are in effect saying that you can eat a meal before reciting havdoloh. This seems to cpontradict another Gemara that relates to this issue. Here it appears that one may1<i class="footnote">From our Gemara it is evident that one may eat a complete meal before havdoloh. Tosfos uses the word לטעום, which implies a small bite or a snack. The use of this word is because the Gemara in Psochim that discusses the issue uses this word because eon the negative side, it is forbidden even to taste something, not only to eat a meal.</i> eat before havdoloh, because we see that the Braiso says that when one only has one cup of wine, he should eat his meal and use the wine for havdoloh and birchas hamozon. It is evident that one may eat before birchas hamozon. This is bewildering. We learned that Amaimar בת טוות (P’sochim 107a) this means that he spent the night in hunger because he had no wine upon which to recite havdoloh. It is evident that one may not eat or drink if he did not yet recite havdoloh. And one can answer: that the story of Amaimar is different than the Braiso we are presently learning. For he, Amaimar expected that he would have a cup of wine the next day. Since he expected his situation to change the next day and he would be able to fulfill the mitzvoh of havdoloh on a cup of wine, he was not allowed to eat. Or Amaimar was being stringent upon himself.And here in our Gemara it, the situation, is different. When one comes home from Shul Saturday night and finds that he only has one cup of wine available and no reasonable expectation that the situation will change by tomorrow since he, the Tano of the Braiso holds that birchas hamozon requires a cup of wine, he must make a decision based on the situation as it is now, since it will most likely not change. Whenever he eats his meal, even if he puts it off for tomorrow, he will not have a cup of wine for the birchas hamozon. He does have wine now that can be used for havdoloh and birchas hamozon, it is therefore better to eat first so that the wine can be used for birchas hamozon and havdoloh and not to first recite havdoloh on the wine and then have no wine for birchas hamozon. And therefore, he leaves it, the wine for birchas hamozon, when he can fulfill both mitzvos over a cup of wine. Whereas in the case of Amaimar there was the expectation that the situation would improve the next day and he would have wine for havdoloh, he needs to wait for the next day and avoid eating before havdoloh. See Rosh.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  ONE WHO TASTED [THE CUP OF WINE] DISQUALIFIED IT. One who tastes wine in a cup renders the remainder blemished. To what degree is I blemished is Tosfos discussion. Rashbam explained, that it is only for kidush and havdoloh that it is required that the cup not be blemished, but for drinking, one is required to recite a b’rochoh even though it, the cup is blemished, because it is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a b’rochoh.And as far as kidush and havdoloh as well, we have not said that the cup cannot be blemished, only when there is a possibility of using some other cup. But if it is impossible to find another cup that is not blemished, one recites the b’rochoh of kidush and havdoloh even upon a blemished cup. And he puts some water into the cup, so that it will appear to be unblemished. As it is stated in Yerushalmee: R” Yonoh tasted the cup and he corrected it by adding water or wine and the explanation is that after he drank from it he added a drop of water or wine to correct it and then he would recite havdoloh or kidush upon it.
  
  Daf 52b
  
  
  
  Daf 53a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  AND IF YOU SAY THAT THIS PROHIBITED [FLAME] HAS GONE. The Gemara is searching for the reason that when a Jew lights a candle from a gentile’s candle it is permissible to recite the b’rochoh on that light, but when a gentile lights a candle from another gentile it is prohibited. The Gemara is presently suggesting that when a gentile lights a fire on Shabos and the Jew lights a candle from that fire after Shabos the original flame is no longer here and that is why the Jew may now recite a b’rochoh on the new light that was kindled. The Gemara eventually rejects this line of thinking.Tosfos wonders why the Gemara even thought that this might be a viable solution to the question. The Gemara could have asked on this hypothesis that if so, that the original flame is no longer here, then when a gentile lights a candle from a gentile after Shabos the same should be true, that the old forbidden flame is no longer here and the new flame should be permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, but the Gemara chose to ask a stronger question from the Braiso that says one is liable for carrying a flame on Shabos, which shows that the old flame is still in existence, otherwise one could not be liable for picking up the old flame and putting down a new flame. Because the Gemara could have answered the question that if it is a new flame, it should be permitted to recite a b’rochoh upon it even when a gentile lights from a gentile as it soon answers that although it is technically correct that the same should apply to a gentile lighting from a gentile, there is a Rabbinic decree that one might confuse a leniency allowing him to use the light of a second gentile and come to use the light of the first gentile. Since the Gemara, even in its question was aware of this possible answer; it chose to ask a question that could not easily be refuted.
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  [THE SAGES ISSUED A] DECREE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST GENTILE, AND THE FIRST GENTILE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST PILLAR [OF FLAME]. There is a general principle that when our Sages legislate decrees that are designed to protect us from violating a prohibition, they do not enact a second decree to protect us from violating the first decree. It seems that in the instance we are discussing here, we have this situation. The initial fear is that one might recite the b’rochoh on the first pillar of light that comes from the gentile’s fire. We therefore say that you cannot recite a b’rochoh on a gentile’s fire at all. That is one decree. We are now extending that to include a second gentile. This seems to be a decree to safeguard us from violating a previous decree.This is one decree, which our sages decreed, that any fire that is in the hand of a gentile cannot be used for the b’rochoh, even though it is somewhat of an expansion of the original fear that one may recite a b’rochoh on the very first pillar of light, the sages sometimes do expand the initial decree to include a second level because if not for this second level of the decree that includes any fire in the hand of a gentile this first level of the decree, would not remain in practice. Our Sages understood that when the decree would be passed on to the regular populace, they would not understand that there is an essential difference between a first gentile and a second gentile. If the fire of a second gentile is permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, they would not understand why the fire of the first gentile is forbidden. They therefore legislated that any fire of a gentile may not be used for the recital of the b’rochoh. All facets of this decree, the first and second gentile’s falls into the context of one decree. Any further legislation to protect one from violating this first expanded decree, for example prohibiting a fire lit by a Jew from a gentile’s fire, would be a decree for a decree, which our Sages did not do.However, upon a fire that a gentile kindled from a Jew’s fire and upon a fire that Jew kindled from a gentile’s fire we may recite a b’rochoh, and that is how we rule. Extending the decree beyond a gentile’s fire to include a fire that a Jew lit from a gentile’s fire or vice versa would be a decree to protect us from violating a decree, which our Sages did not do. 
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  WHERE THERE IS AN IMPORTANT PERSON. Sometimes the light in a synagogue is usable for a b’rochoh and sometimes it is not. The Gemara says that the difference is whether there is an important person in the synagogue or not. We can gather from the context in which this is presented that the flame we are discussing was not really needed for light. Sometimes it was lit for additional light and sometimes in honor of a person. If so, that there was an important person in the synagogue then the light was kindled in honor of the important person and not for light, and we may not recite a b’rochoh on that light since its purpose is to honor an important person and not for light. This is Rashi’s explanation. And Rabainu Chananel said the reverse. When there is an important person it was kindled for light and can be used for the b’rochoh and when there is no important person it was lit for the honor of the synagogue and cannot be used for a b’rochoh.
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  
  
  Line 23
  
  
  
  Line 24
  
  
  
  Line 25
  
  
  
  Line 26
  
  
  
  Line 27
  
  
  
  Line 28
  
  ONE MAY NOT RECITE A BLESSING OVER IT. When one uses perfumed oil in middle of the meal, he does not recite a b’rochoh for benefiting from the fragrance of the wood. But he is benefiting from the oil! Rashi says that he does however recite the b’rochoh that Hashem created sweet oil. And that which we said earlier in perek Kaitzad M’vorchim (43a): this pressed oil, we recite upon it “He who created fragrant wood”, that is when he intends to smell the fragrance and it is not speaking of when one uses it during the meal to cleanse one’s hands.
  
  Daf 53b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  
  
  Line 21
  
  
  
  Line 22
  
  
  
  Line 23
  
  A SIZABLE MEAL. Resh Lokish mentioned two different periods of time that are needed for digestion of food, which is the time until one can still recite birchas hamozon. The Gemara distinguishes between a large meal and a small meal: For a large meal, the time required for digestion is the time it takes to walk four mil.1<i class="footnote">Four mil is approximately four thousand feet. According to most commonly accepted calculations, it is seventy two minutes.</i> This is Rashi’s explanation. And for a small meal the amount of time for digestion according to Resh Lokish, is as long as one is still thirsty.And it appears to me that four mil is just a bit more than the time one remains thirsty. It is unlikely that the Sages would establish for digestion two periods that are so close to each other. Rather, it appears that one should explain the Gemara the opposite way: for a large meal the time required for digestion is as long as he is still thirsty and there is no fixed amount of time. But for a small meal, the time it takes to walk four mil is needed for digestion.
  
  Line 24
  
  
  
  Line 25
  
  
  
  Line 26
  
  
  
  Line 27
  
  
  
  Line 28
  
  
  
  Line 29
  
  
  
  Line 30
  
  
  
  Line 31
  
  
  
  Line 32
  
  AND YOU SHALL BE HOLY, THESE ARE THE FINAL WATERS. It seems from Tosfos that it was not the common custom to wash one’s hand at the end of the meal. From the Gemara it is quite clear that it is required and as long as one does not wash his hands he may not recite birchas hamozon. Tosfos wishes to reconcile the custom of his time with the Gemara. It is exclusively for the times of the Gemara that they regularly washed their hands after the meal because of the possibility that some of the salt may have come from S’dom and it would be harmful if one would not wash his hands after the meal. However, we who do not have S’dom salt available in our hands and we therefore we do not regularly wash our hands after the meal, the lack of washing does not prevent us from reciting birchas hamozon.However, fastidious people who regularly wash their hands after the meal, for them, not washing one’s hands definitely prevents them from reciting birchas hamozon and they must wash their hands before birchas hamozon.
  
  Daf 54a
  
  
  
  Daf 54b
  
  
  
  Daf 55a
  
  
  
  Daf 55b
  
  
  
  Daf 56a
  
  
  
  Daf 56b
  
  
  
  Daf 57a
  
  
  
  Daf 57b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  
  
  Line 17
  
  
  
  Line 18
  
  
  
  Line 19
  
  
  
  Line 20
  
  ONE WHO SEES [THE IDOL] MARKULIS. When our Mishna discusses the b’rochoh recited for the uprooting of an idol, it uses the general term idols. The Braiso that illustrates the teaching of our Mishna speaks specifically of the idol Markulis. The worship of Markulis consisted of designating three stones as the idol. Then one worshipped it by throwing more stones at the original three. The new stones also became part of the idol. Tosfos wonders whether there is any special reason that the Braiso uses Markulis as an example. In Tosefto we learned in place of the word Markulis that is taught here in the Braiso quoted by our Gemara, the general term idols. This indicates that the law taught in this Braiso is not exclusively for Markulis but for all idols. And if so, that this law applies to all idols, then our Braiso is not speaking specifically about Markulis, because we see from the Braiso in Tosefto that the law applies to all idols equally. Rather, because where the Tano of this Braiso lived they used to worship Markulis, he spoke about that idol, but the law applies equally to all idols.If we believed that this b’rochoh was meant to be recited only for Markulis, we could understand why we do not recite the b’rochoh nowadays, since the idolaters that we are exposed to do not worship Markulis, but once it has been established that the law applies equally to all idols, Tosfos wonders why we do not recite this b’rochoh nowadays. And nowadays we do not regularly recite this b’rochoh, because we see the idols every day and all the b’rochos that are mentioned in the Mishna that one is required to recite upon seeing, they said earlier that it means from thirty days to thirty days. So although we do see these idols and one should recite the b’rochoh when seeing any idols, not only Markulis, we do not recite the b’rochoh because we see the idols so regularly.In this second Tosfos with the same heading as the previous Tosfos, Tosfos is dealing with the same issue. In the previous Tosfos he concluded that the B’rochoh applies to all idols equally. We do not recite the b’rochoh because of over-exposure to theses idols. In the next Tosfos, he adopts another approach. Markulis is discussed because there is something that is specifically true of Markulis that does not apply to other idols.
  ONE WHO SEES [THE IDOL] MARKULIS. R’I said: I do not know why the Tano mentioned Markulis more so than any other idol. And it appears to me that one needs to recite this b’rochoh only where they are building a new idol or where it an old idol is being put up there just now.1<i class="footnote">As Tosfos will show later from the Yerushalmee, when an idol is moved from one place to another, the b’rochoh is recited in the new place, even though it is not a new idol.</i> And that is why he mentioned Markulis, because they throw stones at it every day and it is as if they are making the idol larger. It is only then that a b’rochoh needs to be recited, but not for an idol that is permanently there from before.2<i class="footnote">Every idol requires a b’rochoh when it is first built or when it is moved to another place. Markulis has the distinction that since it grows on a regular basis by the new stones that are thrown at it, one recites a b’rochoh on it whenever he sees it.</i> That is why we do not recite the b’rochoh upon seeing the idols that we see every day. They are the same as they always were and since there is no increase in their size, a b’rochoh is not required.In Yerushalmee we find: If an idol was uprooted from one place and was put in another place, in the place that it was put one says: blessed is He who shows forbearance to the transgressors of his will.3<i class="footnote">We see that although it is not a new idol, a b’rochoh is recited.</i> And in the place from which it was uprooted one says: blessed is He who uprooted idols from this place.
  
  Daf 58a
  
  
  
  Daf 58b
  
  
  
  Daf 59a
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  THEREFORE WE WILL SAY THEM BOTH. Rav Popo says that since two feasible phrases were suggested for this b’rochoh to be said upon seeing a rainbow, we should recite both. R’I says that we do not say a conclusion for this b’rochoh. And how do we recite it? Blessed are you Hashem our G-d, King of the universe who is trustworthy in his covenant, and fulfills his promise and remembers his covenant.
  
  Line 13
  
  RAVA SAID: THERE, ONE RECITES: BLESSED…WHOSE POWER FILLS THE WORLD, AND: AUTHOR OF CREATION. The explanation: he says this one, “His power and might fill the world” or that one, “Who makes the works of creation”, whichever he wants, not both, and so did Rav Alfas explain Rovo’s opinion.
  
  Daf 59b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  
  
  Line 2
  
  
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  
  
  Line 6
  
  
  
  Line 7
  
  
  
  Line 8
  
  
  
  Line 9
  
  
  
  Line 10
  
  
  
  Line 11
  
  
  
  Line 12
  
  
  
  Line 13
  
  
  
  Line 14
  
  
  
  Line 15
  
  
  
  Line 16
  
  WHO IS GOOD AND DOES GOOD. When changing the wine that one is drinking, he recites blessed are you Hashem our G-d king of the universe who is good and does good. Theoretically, one could be required to say this b’rochoh upon any food item. Tosfos tells is that this is not so. However, upon changing bread and upon changing meat we do not recite “He is good and does good”. For only upon wine that has two unique characteristics that it satiates and causes one to rejoice we recite “He is good and does good”, but upon meat and bread we do not recite that b’rochoh.What type of change requires the recital of “He is good and does good”? And Rashbam explained in Arvay P’sochim (P’sochim 101a), that it is only when the second wine is superior to the first that we recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good”, but if the second wine is the equal to the first we do not recite the b’rochoh.1<i class="footnote">There is a change of the text mentioned on the side of the Gemara. The Tosfos should read “and so it appears from Yerushalmee”.</i> And so it appears in Yerushalmee in perek Kaitzad M’vorchin: R’ Abo son of Rav Huno said: one must recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good” when one is drinking new wine and changes to old wine, which is better than new wine.2<i class="footnote">The proof of Rashbam is clearly based on this understanding that the change from new to old wine is a change for the better. As we  see in the Tosfos, Rabainu Tam agrees with this understanding. His disagreement is based on his understanding of the story that Yerushalmee tells us about Rebbe. It is interesting to note, that the next statement in Yerushalmee, as understood by the commentators there seems to say exactly what Rashbam said. The Yerushalmee says that upon a change of wine one does not recite a b’rochoh. According to Rashbam, we should say that the Yerushalmee is teaching that if there is no change for the better, one does not recite “He who is good and does good”. It is interesting that neither Rashbam nor Rabainu Tam mention that this latter statement of Yerushalmee indicates the truth of Rashbam’s explanation.</i> Upon a change in wine he need not recite this b’rochoh. Upon a change in place he must recite a b’rochoh, that “He created the fruit of the vine”. Removal of intent to continue drinking is the equivalent of a change in place and one must again recite the b’rochoh “He created the fruit of the vine”.Rashbam’s opinion is not universally held. His brother Rabainu Tam disagrees. And Rabainu Tam explained that even if the last wine is not better than the first one must recite the b’rochoh “He is good and does good”, as long as the change for the worse is not extreme. And the Yerushalmee concludes: Rebbe, on each barrel that he opened would recite “He is good and does good”. And it appears that he did not care if the second was better than the first or not. It is obvious that he could have opened a better barrel each time only if he planned to do so. The Yerushalmee that simply says he recited a b’rochoh on each barrel seems to be telling us that there was no special plan on Rebbe’s part that the next barrel be better than the first.Rabainu Tam deals with the proof that Rashbam used to prove that the Yerushalmee insists that the second wine be better than the first. Even though it is true that old wine was mentioned second, which seems to indicate that only when one changes to better wine is he required to recite a b’rochoh, we can still say that Rebbe argues with that ruling as we see that he did not care about whether the second wine was better than the first, and we follow Rebbe’s ruling in this matter.How does Rashbam deal with the story of Rebbe who did not care whether the second wine was better than the first? And according to the explanation of Rashbam, he will set up this story of Rebbe that he recited a b’rochoh for each barrel indiscriminately, is speaking of when he was in doubt whether the second wine was better and because of the doubt, he recited the b’rochoh on each barrel because of the possibility that perhaps it was better than the first wine.3<i class="footnote">Usually when there is a doubt whether we are required to recite a b’rochoh we are lenient and the b’rochoh is not recited. How come here the Rashbam holds that Rebbe recited a b’rochoh even when there was only a doubt that the second wine was better? See Tiferes Shmuel 3, on Rosh 15, who says that although one wine may be worse than another, there is usually one aspect in which the second wine is better. It may be sweetness or nutritional. We may recite a b’rochoh for that specific improvement, even though overall the second wine is inferior. It is rare that a second wine has absolutely no area in which it is superior to the previous wine, therefore when one is not certain that the second wine is totally inferior, a b’rochoh may be recited for the second wine.</i> However, Rabainu Tam explains that the story of Rebbe comes to argue on the Gemara’s previous statement that the second wine must be better as we have explained.There are those who have a totally different view of the Yerushalmee that Rashbam quoted as proof to his position that one is required to recite “He is good and does good” only when changing to a superior wine. And there are those who explain that the statement in Yerushalmee, about changing wines from new to old wine is speaking of the b’rochoh “He who created the fruit of the vine”, just as the following statement about change of place is discussing the b’rochoh “He who created the fruit of the vine”. However, we do not find this notion of reciting a second b’rochoh of “He who created the fruit of the vine” when changing wines in our Gemara, Talmud Bavli.
  
  Daf 60a
  
  
  
  Daf 60b
  
  
  
  Line 1
  
  WHO FORMED MAN IN WISDOM. What is this wisdom that the text of the b’rochoh refers to? In Midrosh Tanchuma: And G-d created the man: R’ Bun said, He created man, with wisdom. What was the wisdom? That he provided his food supply and then created him. This is what the Gemara refers to in Sanhedrin at the end of perek Echod Dinay Momonos (38a): For this reason he was created the day before Shabos, when everything was complete, so that he should enter into a banquet1<i class="footnote">A banquet in this context is a euphemism for - his needs.</i> immediately. And therefore they, the Sages, instituted that we say “that he fashioned the man with wisdom”.
  
  Line 2
  
  WHO PERFORMS WONDROUS DEEDS. Tosfos wants to tell us what the special wonder about the creation of man, the b’rochoh is referring to. Because we say in B’raishis Raboh about the verse (T’hilim 86, 10), “for You are great and do wonders, You are G-d alone”. When a person makes a flask, even if there is one puncture the size of a sdokis needle, the air in the flask departs, and he cannot secure wine in it. And the Holy one blessed be He created many openings in man and the human body maintains the air within itself, and it does not depart from it.
  
  Line 3
  
  
  
  Line 4
  
  
  
  Line 5
  
  UPON HEARING THE SOUND OF THE ROOSTER, ONE SHOULD RECITE: BLESSED…WHO GAVE THE <i>sekhvi</i> UNDERSTANDING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DAY AND NIGHT. From the way the Gemara is phrased it seems that this b’rochoh should be recited only when one actually hears a rooster crow. Tosfos will explain that the b’rochoh is not for the rooster that crows, rather the light from which we benefit. And the rule is so, that one recites this b’rochoh, even if he did not hear the rooster crow. For the text of this b’rochoh that refers to the crowing of a rooster, is only because the rooster discerns that he can benefit from the light, because the rooster discerns that night has come to an end and benefits from the light. We recite the b’rochoh because we too, will benefit from the light and we can therefore say the b’rochoh even though we do not hear the rooster crow.
  UPON SPREADING A SHAWL UPON HIS HEAD. And the rule is the same, that one should recite the b’rochoh “Who crowns Israel with splendor” on any hat or head covering. And only when he actually benefits does one recite the b’rochoh, but if he does not benefit, for example, when he remains lying on his bed, he should not recite this b’rochoh, nor the b’rochoh “Who clothes the naked”, nor any similar b’rochos that speak of a specific benefit that Hashem does for us, since he is not benefiting, as it appears in the third perek of M’giloh (24b): in regard to a person who never saw light in his days, i.e. he was born blind, that all agree that he should not recite the b’rochoh about light, because he must benefit from the light in order to say the b’rochoh. So too, this series of b’rochos that discuss the various ways that we benefit from Hashem’s creation should be said only when we enjoy that benefit.