Commentaire sur Berakhot 8:9

אלו דברים – [According to the School of Shammai], he recites the blessing on the [Sabbath and/or Holy] Day – at the beginning the Sanctification of the Day and afterwards, recites the blessing on the wine, “Who creates the fruit of the vine/בורא פרי הגפן”, since he first sanctifies the day and afterwards the wine comes on the table because of the day – and just as he sanctified [the day] at its outset, similarly before the blessing of the wine (based upon the principle: "תדיר ושאינו תדיר, תדיר קודם"/"That which is more frequent vs. that which is less frequent, the more frequent comes first” – see Tractate Horayot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 6).

These are the points [of difference] between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in regard to a meal.
Bet Shammai says: first he blesses over the day and then over the wine.
Bet Hillel says: first he blesses over the wine and then over the day.
The eighth chapter of Berakhot deals with disputes between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning various customs and laws governing food and behavior during meals.
The first mishnah contains a well-known debate over the blessings made during Kiddush on Friday evening or the eve of festivals.
Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate the order of the blessings recited at Kiddush. Bet Shammai says that we first recite the blessing over the day. This blessing is “Who sanctifies Israel and the festivals.” Afterwards we recite the blessing over the wine, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” The reasoning for this is that according to Bet Shammai the day causes the wine to be drunk. Bet Hillel says that the wine is blessed first. There are two reasons for this. First of all, the presence of the wine allows us to recite the blessing over the day. Secondly, the blessing over the wine is a commonly recited blessing whereas the blessing over the day is rare. The rule is that common things are recited before uncommon things. The order which we follow today is, as is almost always the case, according to Bet Hillel

מברך על היין – [According to the School of Hillel, he recites the blessing on the wine] first, and the same applies to making Kiddush on the Bread (if he lacks fruit of the vine) since the wine or the bread cause [the need to] Sanctification of the Day, for if he doesn’t have wine or bread, he cannot recite the Sanctification/Kiddush.

בית שמאי אומרים: נוטלין לידים ואחר כך מוזגין את הכוס – For if you say “pour the cup” first, as a preventive measure, lest they defile the liquids that fell on the back of the cup on account of one’s hands, for hands prior to washing them are considered impure in the second-degree, and they defile liquids to become impure in the first-degree, and these liquids would come back and defile the outer surface of the cup, for the liquids that were defiled, defile utensils, according to the Rabbis, but they were lenient in this defilement for the utensil whose back was defiled by liquids [which] are impure, what is inside [the utensil] is not defiled nor one’s hands nor its (the utensil’s) rim. And the School of Shammai thinks that it is forbidden to use the cup whose back is impure, even though the inside was not defiled, as a preventive measure, lest splashing [of liquid] of drops from inside [the cup] touch the outer surface of the cup , and the liquids would acquire defilement on account of the outside of the cup, and would defile the hands, and since it is forbidden to use a utensil whose outside are impure, therefore, we wash our hands first and thereafter pour the cup [of wine], in order that the liquid on the outside of the utensil would not receive defilement on account of the hands – and the outside of the utensils would be found to be [ritually] impure, on account of those liquids and we would be using something that is in a forbidden state; but the School of Hillel thinks that there is no prohibition to use a utensil whose external parts are impure; therefore, we pour the cup [of wine] first and drink it and afterwards wash the hands, for if one would say that we wash the hands first and afterwards pour the cup, as a preventive measure lest the external parts of the cup would be impure, for it is permitted to handle a utensil whose external parts are impure, even if one’s hands are not dried well , which would defile the external parts of the utensil, the liquids on his hands and those liquids that had been made “first-degree” impure would defile the hands and it would be found that he would be eating with unclean hands.

Introduction Our mishnah contains another debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about table manners.

Bet Shammai says: they wash their hands and then they pour the cup [of wine]. Bet Hillel says: they pour the cup [of wine] and then they wash their hands. According to Bet Shammai first they wash their hands in order to purify them and only afterwards do they pour the first cup of wine. Bet Shammai fears that if they pour before the hands are washed and purified, some of the wine might get on the outside of the cup and when the person drinking touches the cup he will make them impure and they will then cause the cup to be impure. Bet Hillel holds that first the cup should be poured and then the hands washed. It seems that they hold that the hands must be washed immediately before the food is eaten and that there shouldn’t be any break in between. Today on days on which Kiddush is recited most people pour the wine, say Kiddush and then wash their hands before they say “Hamotzi,”, the blessing over the bread, and begin the meal. However, there are some whose custom it is to wash hands before Kiddush and then proceed directly from Kiddush to Hamotzi.

מקנח ידיו במפה – From his first hand-washing and place it on the table and wipe his hands with it throughout from the filth of the cooked food; and he should not place it [the napkin] on the cushion on which he sits, as a preventive measure, lest the cushion becomes defiled in the first-degree, and the liquid comes in close contact with the napkin on account of the drying of the hands, and that liquid when it comes in contact with the cushion becomes [defiled] in the first-[degree], and the liquids become [defiled] in the first-[degree], and defile the hands when one wipes [one’s hands] with it continuously during the meal, but concerning the table [itself], there is no preventive measure made, for it is forbidden to use a table which is defiled in the second-degree. But the School of Hillel holds that it is permitted to use a table which is impure in the second-degree. Therefore, he should not leave the napkin on the table, lest the liquids become defiled that are on the napkin on account of the table and in turn would defile the food there, and if he leaves [the napkin] on the cushion, everyone should not suspect lest his hands became defiled; better that his hands become defiled – since they are not an essential principle from Torah law, since the washing of the hands for unconsecrated objects is not from the Torah and they don’t defile foods which have an essential principle from the Torah, for [something that is] unclean from the first-degree makes something unclean in the second-degree for unconsecrated objects from the Torah [perspective].

Introduction Another debate between the two houses, a debate which again connected to matters of purity and impurity. The mishnah refers to a towel which was used to dry one’s hands after washing them and to clean them off during eating (they ate with their hands since forks had not yet been invented). The question is where to place the towel after one has used it to dry one’s hands. It is also important to remember that in mishnaic times they ate reclining on cushions and small tables were brought in front of them on which to serve the food.

Bet Shammai says: he wipes his hand with a towel and then places it on the table. Bet Hillel says: on the cushion. After he has washed his hands, he dries them with a towel and he places the towel on the table. Bet Shammai says he shouldn’t place the towel on the cushion upon which he is reclining lest the cushion is impure and the cushion makes the water on the towel become impure and the water in turn impurifies his hands. Bet Shammai does not fear that the table is impure because they hold that it is forbidden to eat off an impure table. Bet Hillel holds that he should place the towel on the cushion and even if his hands become impure, impure hands is not a serious form of impurity. However, he shouldn’t place the towel on the table lest the table is impure and causes the water in the towel to be impure which in turn causes the food on the table to be impure. While Bet Hillel was not concerned lest one’s hands became impure, they were concerned about the purity of the food.

בית שמאי אומרים: מכבדין את הבית – A place where they ate [a meal], we put the room in order (i.e. clean it/sweep it} from the remnants of the food that became crumbled on it, and afterwards, we wash our hands with מים אחרונים/The Latter Waters, since there are times when the attendant is an עם ארץ/ignoramus (and someone not necessarily punctilious in the separation of tithe) and he leaves the crumbs of an olive’s bulk there, and if one says that one should wash one’s hands first, you might lose the foods from the “Latter Waters/מים אחרונים” that spray on them and become detestable. The School of Hillel holds that it is prohibited to use an attendant who is an ignoramus (of Jewish law, especially, the laws of ritual purity), since an attendant who is a Torah scholar would not leave crumbs of an olive’s bulk, but would remove them, and if the water ( מים האחרונים) sprays upon the crumbs, it is meaningless, since those crumbs do not add up to an olive’s bulk, it is permitted to get rid of them with one’s hand. But the Halakha is in accordance with the School of Shammai in that it is permissible to use an attendant who is an ignoramus.

Introduction Today’s mishnah contains a debate concerning cleaning up after the meal.

Bet Shammai says: [after the meal] they sweep the floor and then they wash their hands. But Bet Hillel says: they wash their hands and then they sweep the floor. According to Bet Shammai first they sweep the floor to gather up all the crumbs that might have fallen during the meal. Evidently these crumbs would be eaten. Food was quite scarce in those times and when we take into consideration how much work they had to put into making bread, it is no wonder that they didn’t want to waste anything, even a small amount of food. Only after sweeping up the crumbs would they wash their hands. This would prevent the crumbs from being ruined by the water. Bet Hillel holds that the first thing they should do is wash their hands so that they can bless and say Birkat Hamazon immediately. In the time of the mishnah it was considered mandatory to wash one’s hands before reciting Birkat Hamazon. Many Jews still observe this law on Shabbat and holidays. According to the Talmud the servant would pick up all the pieces of significant size (more than an olive’s worth) before they would wash their hands so that those pieces could be saved. It seems that to Bet Hillel it was important that they shouldn’t delay Birkat Hamazon any more than is absolutely necessary.

נר ומזון – He who ate on Shabbat after [reciting] the Minha/Afternoon Service, and it became dark and he had not yet completed his meal and he doesn’t have more than a cup’s worth of wine, the School of Shammai states: [One recites the blessings for] the Candle, the Meal, the spices and the Havdalah prayer, since everyone [holds] that Havdalah [is recited] at the end, so that when one “leaves” a day, we do it as late [as possible] in order that it (the Sabbath) would not seem to him like a burden. They (the Schools of Hillel and Shammai) did not disagree other than on the Candle and on the Spices, for the School of Shammai holds [that we recite the blessings in the following order]: Candle, the Meal, and afterwards the Spices. And the School of Hillel says [that we recite the blessings in the following order]: The Candle, and the Spices, since both the Candle and Spices are mutually blessings that we can do and they do not appear as a burden, such as the Candle and Spices [which are recited] prior to ברכת המזון

Introduction In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate the order of the various blessings recited as part of the Havdalah, the set of blessings that separates Shabbat or a holiday from the day that follows. The specific situation under discussion is a case where people were eating a meal on Saturday night at nightfall and they wanted to combine Birkat Hamazon and Havdalah and say them both over the same cup of wine.

בית שמאין אומרים שברא מאור האש – Who created, which implies in the past, and not “who creates,” which implies in the future.

Bet Shammai says: [the proper order is] candle, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, spices, and Havdalah. But Bet Hillel says: candle, spices, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, and Havdalah. Bet Shammai holds that the candle’s blessing comes first because as soon as the candle is lit they immediately benefit from the candle’s light. They then do Birkat Hamazon because they has already finished eating. Finally they bless over the spices and Havdalah. Bet Hillel holds that since the candle and spices are both short blessings, they go together. In other words, he moves the blessing over the spices up to join it with the blessing over the candle. He then recites Birkat Hamazon and Havdalah.

מאור האש – and not the “lights of fire” since one “light” is found in a fire.

Bet Shammai says [the blessing over the candle concludes with the words], “Who created the light of the fire.” But Bet Hillel says: “Who creates the lights of the fire.” This debate about the wording of the blessing over the candle is actually a deep theological debate. According to Bet Shammai we bless over the original light that God created in the beginning of the world. We are thanking God for something that happened in the past, for an act that was long ago completed. This is close, perhaps, to an Aristotelian conception of God as the prime mover. God created fire and henceforth, all fire stems from that original fire. In contrast, Bet Hillel says that we thank God for continuously creating fire. God is still acting as a creator in continuing the normal functioning of the world.

ובית הלל אומרים בורא – which also implies in the past

מאורי האש – There are many colors in the flame: red, white and greenish.

לא על הנר ולא על הבשמים – of an idolater. The [Havdalah] Candle because he [the idolater] did not rest on the Sabbath and did work by its candles, and we hold that light that did not “rest,” should not have blessing recited on it, since it was used in [acts of] transgression; and the spices of gentiles – we are speaking about the spices that are used at the dining parties of idolaters and constellation worshippers who are guests at them and since it is taught at the conclusion of the Mishnah “and not on the [Havdalah] candle and not on the Spices that are before the gods of the idolaters and constellation worshippers – what is the reason that it is said? What is the reason that we do not make a blessing on the spices of idolaters and constellation worshippers? Because it is considered a mere idolatrous dinner party for their god, and we don’t recite a blessing on the spices of those who are idolaters and constellation worshippers.

Introduction This mishnah teaches some laws concerning the candles and spices.

ולא על הנר של מתים –that we should make use their light even for mere honor.

They do not bless over the candles or the spices of non-Jews; A Jew cannot use a candle that was lit on Shabbat by a non-Jew because the candle has to cease being used during the Shabbat for it to be used at Havdalah. It too has to have a Shabbat. He can’t use the spices of non-Jews because we fear that they may have been used for idolatry.

ולא על בשמים של מתים – That we would use it to remove the odor.

Or over the candles or the spices of the dead; This section refers to candles that were lit to honor the dead or spices that were used to mask the odor of a dead body. Since these were intended to be used for the dead, they cannot be used for Havdalah.

ולא על נר ובשמים – of idolaters and constellation worshippers , since it is forbidden to derive benefit from them.

Or over the candles or the spices of idolatry; It is forbidden to derive benefit from anything used for idolatry and hence it is forbidden to use the candle for light or the spices for smell.

עד שיאותו לאורו – That they would benefit from its light, but not benefit in actuality, but it is so close to it, that one could benefit if one desired.

And a blessing is not said over the light until they benefit from its light. It is not enough to light the candle, one must actually use it as well. This is why people put their hands up to the candle today when doing Havdalah.

שיתעכל המזון שבמעיו – As long as he is not hungry on account of that meal, it is a sign that the food was not consumed in his stomach. And specifically, [when] he forgot, the School of Hillel says that he should not go back, but if he did it on purpose, everyone agrees that he should return to the place [where he ate] and recite the blessing [of ברכת המזון].

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who has forgotten to recite Birkat Hamazon after eating.

One who has eaten and forgotten to bless [Birkat Hamazon]: Bet Shammai says: he must return to the place where he ate and bless. But Bet Hillel says: he should say it in the place where he remembered. According to Bet Shammai one must return to the place one ate in order to recite Birkat Hamazon. Bet Hillel says that he can recite it wherever he might be.

Until when can he bless? Until sufficient time has passed for the food in his stomach to be digested. He may recite Birkat Hamazon as long as the food is still found in his stomach. According to the Talmud the food is considered to be in his stomach as long as he is not hungry. Once a person is hungry for a new meal we consider it as if the food is no longer in his stomach and he can no longer recite Birkat Hamazon.

מברך על היין ואחר כך מברך על המזון – Since [the recitation of] ברכת המזון/The Blessing after the Meal does not require a cup [of wine]. But the School of Hillel holds that ברכת המזון requires a cup.

Introduction The final mishnah of our chapter contains one more debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.

עונין אמן אחר ישראל המברך – And even though he did not hear the mention of The (God’s) Name other than at the end of the blessing, since it is assumed that towards Heaven, he recited a blessing.

If wine comes to them after the food, and there is only that cup: Bet Shammai says: he blesses over the wine and then he blesses over the food; But Bet Hillel says: he blesses over the food and then he blesses over the wine. Bet Hillel’s position is more familiar so I will begin with it. Bet Hillel holds that if there is only one cup of wine left over at the end of the meal he should recite the Birkat Hamazon and then drink the wine and then bless over it. This way the Birkat Hamazon is recited over the cup of wine. Many Jews still do this at every Shabbat meal and it is most traditional at the seder, at weddings and at circumcisions. Bet Shammai says that he may drink the wine first and that he does not need to recite the Birkat Hamazon over a cup of wine. Alternatively Bet Shammai may hold that reciting Birkat Hamazon over a cup of wine means that he first drinks the wine and then recites Birkat Hamazon.

אלא אם כן שמע כל הברכה – lest he (i.e., the Cuthean) recited a blessing towards Mount Gerizim.

They answer amen after a blessing said by an Israelite but they do not answer amen after a blessing said by a Samaritan, until he hears the whole blessing. One answers amen to blessings recited by other Israelites but not to blessings recited by Samaritans unless one is sure that the blessing was recited properly. The concern is that the Samaritan may have recited an idolatrous blessing. Samaritans were originally an Israelite group but had long since separated themselves from the more mainstream Jews. Hence, in some matters they were considered Jewish while in others they were considered to be Gentiles. In our case they cannot assumed to be acting like Jews and reciting proper blessings unless it can be proven.