This page of Berakhot, daf 48, is dedicated לעילוי נשמת Rahamim ben Mazal. May his soul be bound in the bond of life and rest in the Garden of Eden. This page is also dedicated by Mr. Henry Hefetz in honor of his wife, Sarah Hefetz. May Hashem grant them life and blessing. Amen.
We are on daf 47b, nine lines from the bottom. The Gemara says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that a person should rise early and come to the synagogue so that he will be counted among the first ten. Even if a hundred people come after him, he receives the reward of all of them.
The Gemara asks: Is it possible that because he arrived among the first ten, he receives everyone else’s reward? The others should receive some reward as well. Rather, the meaning is that he receives a reward corresponding to all of them. Whatever reward everyone else receives, he receives that reward as well. The logic is that he was responsible for establishing the quorum. Since he helped bring the Divine Presence among the ten, he receives credit for everyone who follows.
Rav Huna says that nine people and the Ark can combine to form a quorum of ten. The novelty of this statement is that nine people plus the Holy Ark count as ten. The Vilna Gaon explains that the Ark is “one that sees but is not seen”: it observes what is happening, although it cannot itself be seen.
Rav Nahman challenged him: Is the Ark a person? The Torah says, “I will be sanctified among the Children of Israel,” indicating that a quorum requires people. Rather, Rav Huna said that nine people who appear to be like ten can combine. If there are nine people in the room and, because of the way they are arranged, they look like ten, they count as ten.
Some say that this applies when the people are gathered closely together. You see a group sitting together, but it is difficult to determine whether there are nine or ten, and it appears to be ten. Others say that it applies when they are scattered throughout the room. One person is standing there and another person is standing elsewhere, and the group appears to be larger than it actually is. Rashi explains that “appearing as ten” means that they appear to be a larger group.
Rabbi Ami says that two people and Shabbat can combine. We now arrive at the subject of Zimun. Perhaps Shabbat can be counted as the third person for Zimun in the same way that Shabbat is considered a new presence for the laws of the seven blessings. If Shabbat can be considered a new presence, perhaps it can also be counted as the third member of a Zimun.
Rav Nahman asked him: Is Shabbat a person? Zimun requires three people. Rather, Rabbi Ami meant that two Torah scholars who sharpen one another in learning can combine, because two such scholars are considered like three.
The Gemara does not ask, “Is a Torah scholar a person?” as it asked regarding the Ark and Shabbat. Here, we can understand why two Torah scholars are considered like three. We previously learned that three women can join for Zimun even though they are not men, because they possess intelligence and awareness. Once there are three distinct perspectives, they can combine.
Similarly, when two Torah scholars exchange ideas, one presents an approach and the other presents a different approach. They then refine one another’s thinking, and together they create a third perspective. Two Torah scholars therefore produce three perspectives and can combine to form a Zimun.
How did Rabbi Ami initially say that two people and Shabbat can combine, and then revise his statement to say that two Torah scholars who sharpen one another can combine? The explanation is that the Zohar calls a Torah scholar “Shabbat.” There is a famous story about the Baal Shem Tov. Once, he felt that he had failed to honor a Torah scholar properly. He wondered what sin he had committed that had caused him to behave in that way, since a person is treated measure for measure.
He concluded that there must have been some deficiency in his honor of Shabbat. Shabbat is called a Torah scholar, so the failure to honor a Torah scholar was measure for measure for a deficiency in honoring Shabbat. Thus, when the Gemara originally said “two people and Shabbat,” it was referring to two Torah scholars. Two Torah scholars create a third “Shabbat”—that is, a third perspective—and can therefore combine.
Rav Hisda gives an example: Rav Anan and Rav Hisda. They were Torah scholars who sharpened one another in learning and nevertheless maintained peace between them.
Rabbi Yohanan says that a minor who has developed can be counted for Zimun. What does “a minor who has developed” mean? It means that he has developed two physical signs of puberty, although he has not yet reached the age of thirteen. Such a minor can be counted for Zimun.
A baraita teaches similarly: A minor who has developed two signs can be counted for Zimun. The baraita then adds that we do not examine the minor carefully. This appears contradictory. Initially, the baraita says that he must have two signs, implying that the signs are necessary. It then says that we do not examine a minor carefully, implying that the signs do not matter.
The Gemara explains the contradiction. When the baraita initially says that he brought two signs, it means that if he has the signs, he can be counted, but if he does not have them, he cannot. When the baraita later says that we do not examine a minor carefully, it means that we do not examine his age closely. He does not have to be thirteen years old. He must have the physical signs, but we do not need to determine whether he has reached the precise age of majority.
Rashi explains that we do not examine whether he has reached the required age, because two years can sometimes be regarded as having arrived on one day. The essential requirement is that he has the signs of puberty; he does not have to be exactly thirteen.
Tosafot examines the wording further. The later clause, “we do not examine a minor,” appears to include a minor whose signs have merely begun to develop. Tosafot explains that the later clause reveals the meaning of the earlier clause. When the first part says that the minor has two signs, it does not necessarily mean fully developed signs of the usual size. They may only have begun to emerge. The later clause teaches that even a minor whose signs have merely sprouted can be counted.
In other words, there are two types of signs. There are fully developed signs of puberty, which are sufficiently long that they can be folded over, and there are signs that have merely begun to grow. The initial clause refers to the former, while the later clause teaches that even the latter are sufficient.
Tosafot then asks: Why do we need the category of a minor who has begun to develop? Earlier, we discussed the possibility that even a baby in a crib might be counted as the tenth person. If a minor can be counted as the tenth person, perhaps the same should apply here. Tosafot answers that there is a distinction. For a quorum of ten, a minor may be counted as the additional tenth person. Here, however, the discussion concerns forming a Zimun of three. For that purpose, the minor must at least have begun to develop.
When the baraita says that one may count him, it is referring specifically to a group of three. In a group of ten, there is already a quorum, and the minor is only being added as the tenth person. In a group of three, however, the minor is one of the essential members of the Zimun, and therefore he must at least be a minor who has begun to develop.
The Gemara concludes with the expression, “Let us follow the voice of the tradition.” Tosafot immediately comments that this appears to reject Rabbi Yohanan’s statement regarding a minor who has begun to develop. Instead, perhaps the halakhah follows Rav Nahman, who says that a minor who knows to Whom he is reciting the blessing can be counted for Zimun.
According to that view, the minor does not have to be twelve years old or have signs of puberty. If he is old enough to understand to Whom he is directing the blessing, he can be counted. The Shulchan Aruch rules that, for a Zimun of three or ten, one minor can be included if he understands to Whom he is blessing. Such a child could be six or seven years old; he does not need to have reached puberty.
Abaye and Rava were children, and they once sat before Rabbah. Rabbah wanted to test whether they understood to Whom a blessing is directed. He asked them, “To Whom do we recite blessings?” They answered, “To the Merciful One.” He then asked them, “And where is the Merciful One seated?”
Rava pointed toward the ceiling of the study hall or house and said, “Up there.” Abaye went outside and pointed toward the sky. Rabbah said to them, “The two of you will become great Torah scholars.” This reflects the saying that one can recognize the future quality of a small gourd from the time it is still small. From the early growth of a plant, one can already see what it will become when it matures.
What was so impressive about their answers? If someone asked us where God is, we would probably point upward. I saw several explanations brought in the name of Rabbi Pesach Frank, of blessed memory, by the Tzitz Eliezer. He said that he visited Rabbi Pesach Frank in his sukkah during Sukkot, and Rabbi Pesach Frank explained the matter there.
One explanation is based on their personal circumstances. Rava had parents. When Rabbah asked, “Where is the Merciful One seated?” Rava pointed to the roof of his house. He meant that although his livelihood came to him through his parents, he understood that everything ultimately came from the Holy One, blessed be He. He had the faith to recognize that his parents were only the channel through which the blessing came.
Abaye, however, was an orphan. The verse says, “In You the orphan finds mercy.” He could not point to his home because he had no parents. He therefore went outside and pointed directly toward the sky, expressing that his livelihood came directly from the Holy One, blessed be He, without an intermediary.
That itself showed a deep level of understanding. Rava understood that even when a person receives something through his parents, it truly comes from the Holy One, blessed be He. Abaye understood that even when a person has no parents, everything still comes from the Holy One, blessed be He.
There is another explanation. What is a person’s task in life? The verse says, “A person is born for toil.” The purpose of that toil is to learn in order to teach. One should not learn only for oneself. As the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot says, one who learns Torah in order to teach is given the opportunity to learn and teach. One should not keep the Torah for oneself but share it with others.
The two righteous men were teaching us a way of life. A person cannot teach unless he first learns. Some people are eager to teach, but they do not yet have what to teach. First, a person must build himself up, and the more he develops himself, the more successful he will be when he goes out to others.
Rava pointed to the walls of the study hall. He was saying that the Merciful One is found in the study hall, where a person sits and learns. Abaye agreed, but then he went outside. He was saying that after a person learns in the study hall, he must take what he learned and bring it outside to the public. One must first learn and then share that learning with others. These are two different approaches, and both are necessary.
I once mentioned a third explanation when I was invited to speak at the Siyum HaShas organized by Agudat Yisrael. There was a signing ceremony connected with the event at MetLife Stadium, and I was asked to deliver a speech to motivate people to participate.
Some people were questioning the decision to hold the event outdoors in January. It would be a very cold winter day, and they were concerned that the weather might prevent a large crowd from attending. I said that the Gemara tells us that Rava pointed to the study hall and said that the Merciful One is there. For seven and a half years, we learned in the study hall. Then Abaye came along and went outside, teaching that after one finishes learning in the study hall, one must also go outside.
We were fulfilling both aspects of the Gemara. Torah must be inside and outside. It must be learned in the study hall and then brought into the public sphere. That explanation was well received.
Rav Yehudah, the son of Rav Shemuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav that if nine people ate bread and one person ate vegetables, they can combine for Zimun. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Yehudah: What about eight people who ate bread and two who ate vegetables? What about seven who ate bread and three who ate vegetables?
Rav Yehudah answered that there is no difference. Nine and one, eight and two, and seven and three are all treated alike. Rabbi Zeira said that he did not ask about six people who ate bread and four who ate vegetables because he assumed that six would not be sufficient.
Rav Yehudah told him that he had done well not to ask. Since the principle is that the majority determines the group, six should also be sufficient. Just as nine is a majority, eight is a majority, and seven is a majority, six is also a majority. Therefore, there should be no difference between six and seven.
The Gemara asks what Rabbi Zeira himself had thought. Rabbi Zeira apparently believed that the requirement was not merely a majority, but a recognizable majority. Seven out of ten is a clear and noticeable majority, whereas six out of ten is only a minimal majority and is close to half. He therefore thought that only a recognizable majority would be sufficient.
This is one way to understand the passage. The Rashba examines another aspect of the wording. In the text there is a variant reading involving the word “certainly” and the expression “alas, why did I not ask about six?” According to the corrected reading, Rabbi Zeira regretted not asking about six. He was uncertain whether the ruling required a recognizable majority or any majority. Since he did not ask, he never learned what the answer would have been.
According to Rabbi Zeira’s original assumption, perhaps the requirement was a recognizable majority, in which case six would not suffice. Rav Yehudah clarified that the principle was simply majority rule, and therefore six would also suffice. The difference between the textual versions is whether Rabbi Zeira said that he certainly did not need to ask about six or whether he regretted not asking.
In any event, the halakhic conclusion is that a recognizable majority is required. The majority must be clearly evident.
The Gemara then tells the story of King Yannai and the queen. Yannai was a king from the Hasmonean dynasty. The Hasmoneans had originally assumed not only the priesthood, which belonged to them, but also the monarchy. Yannai was considered unfit for the priesthood because of questions regarding his lineage. As a result, he killed the Torah scholars of Israel.
King Yannai and the queen were eating bread together. Since Yannai had killed the Torah scholars, there was no one present to recite the blessing after the meal for them. He himself did not know how to recite the blessing after meals. Nevertheless, he was particular about having the blessing recited.
Yannai said to the queen, “Find me someone who can recite the blessing for us.” She replied, “Swear to me that if I bring you such a person, you will not torture him as you tortured everyone else.” The queen was the sister of Shimon ben Shetah. She approached her brother and told him that she would bring him to Yannai, but only if Yannai promised not to kill him.
Yannai swore that he would not harm the Torah scholar. The queen then brought Shimon ben Shetah, one of the early Tannaim. Shimon sat between the king and the queen as a participant in the meal.
Yannai said to him, “You see how much honor I am giving you. I did not place you outside; I seated you between the two of us. See how much honor I am showing you.”
What should one answer when a king who killed all the Torah scholars gives him honor and tells him how much honor he is showing him? Shimon ben Shetah answered, “You are not giving me any honor. The Torah is giving me honor.”
He cited the verse, “Honor it, and it will raise you; it will honor you when you embrace it.” The meaning is that the Torah itself brings honor to a person. With all due respect to the king, the honor did not come from Yannai. It came from the Torah.
Yannai did not like this answer. He said to the queen, “You see that he does not accept authority.” Nevertheless, they gave Shimon the cup used for the blessing.
Shimon asked, “How can I recite the blessing? Should I say, ‘Let us bless the One who has eaten, Yannai and his companions, from whose bounty we have eaten’?” He could not say that, because he himself had not eaten with them. Instead, he drank the cup of wine.
Once he drank the wine, they gave him another cup, and he recited the blessing after the meal. This itself is a novelty, because Shimon was reciting the blessing on behalf of Yannai even though he was not personally obligated in the blessing after meals.
If this had involved a mitzvah, such as the shofar, there would be no difficulty. Once a person has fulfilled his own obligation, he can sometimes recite the blessing for others because of the principle of mutual responsibility. Here, however, the blessing after meals is a blessing for enjoyment, and Shimon had not eaten. The Gemara therefore teaches that drinking the wine enabled him to recite the blessing for them.
Rav Abba, the son of Rav Hiyya bar Abba, says that Shimon ben Shetah acted according to his own individual position. Other authorities did not agree with him. Rav Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that a person cannot fulfill the obligation of the many until he has eaten at least an olive-sized portion of grain.
There is a question regarding the meal of Yannai, the queen, and Shimon ben Shetah. How could there have been a Zimun? The king and queen were two people, and Shimon was not obligated to recite the blessing after meals. The answer may be that the king and queen were the primary participants in the meal, and Shimon’s drinking the wine enabled him to become part of the group for purposes of the blessing.
Rashi discusses the requirement to eat an olive-sized portion. Once a person has eaten an olive-sized portion of grain, he can fulfill the obligation of another person, even though the olive-sized portion is the measure established by the Sages rather than the Torah’s measure of satiety. The principle is that one does not have to be obligated on exactly the same level as the other person. One must be obligated in some form in the blessing after meals and can then fulfill the obligation of others.
This explains why a minor generally cannot fulfill the obligation of his father. The minor has only a rabbinic obligation, while the father’s obligation may be from the Torah. The minor is not obligated in the same way as his father, and therefore cannot recite the blessing on his father’s behalf merely because the minor has some form of obligation.
The Gemara later discusses a similar case involving a person who reclined with a group that was eating but did not actually eat with them. He dipped something in brine and ate one fig. The question is whether that is sufficient for him to combine with them.
The principle is that if a person eats an olive-sized portion, even of vegetables, or drinks a cup of wine, he can combine with the group once he has consumed the required amount. The essential point is that the food or drink must be consumed, not merely placed in the mouth and removed. Once he has eaten the required amount, he can join the group.
Rav Nahman says that Moses established the first blessing of the blessing after meals when the manna descended. The Israelites were eating, and they needed to recite a blessing after the meal. What blessing could they make? The Torah says that they should bless Hashem after eating and being satisfied.
When Joshua brought the Jewish people into the Land of Israel, he established the blessing over the Land. David and Solomon established the blessing regarding Jerusalem. David established it when he became king over Jerusalem, and Solomon added to it when he built the Temple.
The blessing of the Good and Beneficent was established much later, after the events of Yavneh. The day on which those who were killed at Betar were finally brought to burial, the sages of Yavneh established the blessing of the Good and Beneficent: “He is good” because the bodies did not decay, and “He does good” because they were finally granted burial.
Let us review the historical background mentioned here. The Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, but a stronghold of Jews remained in Betar under the leadership of Bar Kokhba. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews there, and they were strong enough to push back the Roman armies. At one point, Bar Kokhba even planned to build the Third Temple.
There was still hope for the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple. Bar Kokhba was even thought by some to be the Messiah, but he ultimately proved to be a false messiah and became known as Bar Koziva.
The Romans eventually entered Betar and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews. They were so angry that they did not allow the rabbis to enter and bury the dead. For seven years, the bodies remained in the fields through the hot summers of the Land of Israel.
After the sages prayed that they would be allowed to enter and bury the dead, the Romans finally permitted it. When the Jews entered, they witnessed a double miracle. First, after seven years, the bodies had not decayed. Second, they were permitted to bury them.
The blessing was established in the order in which the events occurred. When they entered and saw that the bodies had not decayed, they said, “He is good.” After they buried the dead, they said, “He does good.”
Why was this blessing inserted into the blessing after meals? After mentioning Jerusalem, we say, “Blessed are You, Hashem, Builder of Jerusalem.” But Jerusalem had been destroyed. A person could become depressed when saying, “Builder of Jerusalem,” while looking at the destruction around him.
Therefore, the sages inserted the blessing of the Good and Beneficent to lift the person’s spirit. One should not recite a blessing from a state of sadness. The story of Betar reminds us that although the Jewish people were left in the fields for many years, they did not disappear. The bodies remained intact, and the Jews were ultimately able to bury them.
This was a sign for the future of the Jewish people. Even though we would be in exile for many years, the Jewish people would remain intact. Even after the destruction of the Temple, Hashem had not forgotten us. The miracle at Betar occurred after the destruction and demonstrated that the Divine Presence remained with the Jewish people even in the aftermath of the destruction.
Thus, at the conclusion of the blessing after meals, we remind ourselves not only of the destruction of the Temple but also of the future rebuilding of the Temple. The Divine Presence remained with the Jewish people, and there will ultimately be a future Temple.
There is also an explanation connected with the wine. The bodies at Betar were not used to fertilize the fields. Therefore, when we drink wine, we remember that miracle as well: the fields were not fertilized with the bodies of the Jews who had been killed. The blessing of the Good and Beneficent commemorates the miracles that occurred after the destruction.
It was suggested that perhaps the blessing of the Good and Beneficent was originally established as a general blessing over wine and other things, and that the sages of Yavneh later inserted it into the blessing after meals. The answer is that the sages established it specifically in the blessing after meals. The Gemara says that on the day the dead were buried, the sages of Yavneh established it there.
The order of the blessing after meals is as follows: The first blessing is the blessing for nourishment. The second is the blessing for the Land. The third is the blessing for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The fourth is the blessing of the Good and Beneficent.
On Shabbat, one begins the third blessing with the regular wording. One does not have to begin the third blessing with the special wording for Shabbat. The third blessing is fundamentally the blessing of consolation, whether it begins with a request for mercy or with a request for consolation.
The mention of the sanctity of the day is inserted in the middle of that blessing. One begins the blessing in the regular manner, includes the reference to Shabbat in the middle, and concludes with the blessing regarding Jerusalem. The sanctity of the day is inserted in the middle rather than at the beginning or end.
The sages refer to the third blessing as the blessing of consolation, whether one begins it with a request for mercy or with a request for consolation. The essential point is that one does not need to begin the third blessing with Shabbat.
The discussion then turns to the placement of the additions for special occasions. One could insert the passage for Hanukkah or Purim in the second, third, or fourth blessing. The first opinion permits inserting it in any of those places.
The later sages say that it should be inserted only in the blessing of consolation, the third blessing. This appears to be the same position as the first opinion, since the first opinion also referred to the blessing of consolation. The Gemara explains that the difference between them concerns what happens after the fact.
According to the later sages, if the addition was not inserted in the blessing of consolation, one must repeat the blessing after meals. According to the first opinion, if it was inserted elsewhere, one has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation after the fact. The disagreement concerns the case in which the addition was said in the wrong blessing, not necessarily the case in which it was omitted entirely.
The Gemara then asks how we know that there is an obligation to recite the blessing after meals from the Torah. The verse says, “You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless.” The word “eat” refers to eating, “be satisfied” refers to satisfaction, and “bless” refers to the blessing after meals.
The first word that clearly refers to a blessing is “you shall bless,” and that teaches the first blessing, the blessing for nourishment. “Hashem your God” refers to the invitation of Zimun. “For the good Land” refers to the blessing over the Land. “The good mountain” refers to Jerusalem. The word “good” refers to the blessing of the Good and Beneficent.
One might have expected the verse to mention the blessing of Zimun first and the blessing for nourishment afterward. The Gemara presents them in the opposite order. The simple explanation is that the blessing for nourishment is more frequent. It is recited whenever a person eats bread, whereas Zimun occurs only when there are at least three people. The more frequent obligation is mentioned first.
Rashi’s position creates a difficulty. According to the view that without Zimun one begins the blessing after meals from a later point, the blessing for nourishment also depends on Zimun. If that is so, why does the verse place the blessing for nourishment before Zimun?
The halakhic answer is that the blessing for nourishment is generally more frequent, since it applies every time a person eats bread, while Zimun is not always present. Therefore, even though there are particular circumstances in which the blessing for nourishment is connected to Zimun, it is mentioned first because it is the more frequent blessing.
Rabbi Meir asks how we know that a person must make a blessing before eating. The verse says, “The Land that He gave you.” This indicates that a blessing must be recited when one receives the food, before eating it. Once the bread has been eaten, it is no longer something being received; therefore, the blessing must be recited beforehand.
Rabbi Natan offers another source. One does not need to derive the first blessing from this passage. We know from the verse, “He will bless your bread and your water.” The word “bread” refers to bread before it is eaten. Once it has been eaten, it is no longer called bread. Therefore, the verse teaches that a blessing must be made over the bread before eating it.
There is also a story involving Saul before he became king. Saul was searching for Samuel the prophet because he needed to bring an offering. He encountered several young women and asked them where the prophet was. They could have simply told him where to find Samuel, but they gave him a long explanation about how to reach the city and what would happen there.
They told him that when he reached the city, he would find Samuel, and that the people would not eat until Samuel arrived, because he would bless the offering. Only after he recited the blessing over the offering would the people eat it.
This teaches that one recites a blessing before eating the offering. Rashi explains that Samuel would bless the sacrifice, and afterward the people would be able to eat from it. The blessing was a blessing over a mitzvah, such as “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding the eating of the sacrifice.”
This is not exactly the blessing over enjoyment that we were seeking, but it still demonstrates that a blessing is recited before eating. The Gemara is looking for the source of the first blessing before eating, while the story of Samuel concerns a blessing over a mitzvah. The distinction must therefore be kept in mind.
The Gemara then turns to the blessing over Torah. One might ask why the discussion suddenly moves to the blessing over Torah. The answer is that the verse says “the good Land,” and the sages interpret “good” as referring to Torah. The blessing over Torah is therefore also derived from the language of the verse.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani teaches a kal vachomer: If a person is obligated to recite a blessing over temporary physical life and food, then he is certainly obligated to recite a blessing over the Torah, which gives enduring life.
Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami, in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, says that no separate derivation is necessary. The verse says, “The good Land that He gave you.” What did Hashem give us? He gave us the Torah, which is described as something given and commanded. The language of the verse itself teaches the obligation to recite a blessing over Torah.
Rabbi Meir teaches that just as a person blesses Hashem for good, he must also bless Him for what appears to be bad. The verse says, “The good Land that He gave you,” and the use of the Divine names teaches that a person must acknowledge Hashem both through the attribute of mercy and through the attribute of judgment.
One must praise Hashem for every judgment that He brings upon a person, whether it appears to be an expression of goodness or an expression of suffering. The blessing is not limited to what a person recognizes as good at the moment.
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says that no additional proof is needed for the blessing over Torah. The verse speaks of the “good Land,” and “good” refers to Torah. The “good mountain” refers to Jerusalem, while “the good” refers to the Torah. The phrase “the good mountain” is also understood as referring to Lebanon, another description associated with Jerusalem.
That concludes this passage. May Hashem grant us the ability to recognize His goodness, to bless Him for what He gives us, and to continue learning and teaching His Torah.